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
54,737 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 49,192 (89.9%) 
Undecided
  
 3,060 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,485 (4.5%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gnom (talk) on 2024-04-05 14:01 (UTC)
Scope:
celesta
Used in:
en:celesta
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Contributers2020Talk to me here! 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-04-15 05:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Trochus histrio (Actor Top Snail), shell, juvenile

 Support All criteria --Ercé (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gnom (talk) on 2024-04-15 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
octobass
Used in:
en:Octobass
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2024-04-15 15:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Popruzhna
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-04-15 16:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Panicum miliaceum (common millet), seeds, dried specimen
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2024-04-15 17:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Flower bud of a Camellia 'Jury's Yellow'
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-16 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna and Child by Bartolomeo Vivarini (inv. CL I n. 26) in Museo Correr Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-16 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Biston betularia – mounted specimen Male ventral

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-16 05:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Helmet of George II of England by David Lemarchand Musée Goya of Castres
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-04-16 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Cerastoderma edule var. loppensi (Common cockle), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-04-16 07:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Echinochloa frumentacea (Indian barnyard millet), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-16 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Elminia longicauda (African blue flycatcher)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
S5A-0043Talk on 2024-04-16 14:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Rear of GAC Aion Hyper HT
Reason:
 Comment Not sure whether the category is OK because someone decided to categorize this into the gull-wing variant instead even though this image doesn't show it because the door is closed. If scope needs to be changed please notify me. -- S5A-0043Talk
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-04-17 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Detail of the main entrance of the Reformierte Kirche Zernez (inside)
Used in:
Cultural property of national significance in Switzerland.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-17 04:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Apocheima hispidaria – mounted specimen Male dorsal

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-17 04:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Vishnu in the form of a dwarf, 8nd century. Musée Georges Labit, Toulouse
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-17 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Nature morte au compotier (Still life with fruit bowl) by Manuel Ortiz de Zarate
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-04-17 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Cerastoderma edule var. loppensi (Common Cockle), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Maks (talk) on 2024-04-17 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Place of Shmankivtsi castle
✓ Done Maks (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Maks (talk) on 2024-04-17 06:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Nicholas chapel in Shmankivtsi

 Comment The shot is too far away, this one is probably better File:Шманьківці - Каплиця св. Миколая - 44.jpg. Furthermore per COM:VIS (5), image should be geocoded. --Pierre André (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-04-17 07:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Sorghum bicolor (sorghum var. Moderne), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2024-04-17 08:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Krasylivka, Bila Tserkva Raion
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-04-17 16:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Nicolas d'Allennes-les-Marais, view from Rue de l'Église
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-04-17 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Ligne fortifiée dite Wotan Stellung (Allennes-les-Marais), view from Etang Emmanuel Marchand
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) -- Pierre André (talk)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-17 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Cuculus solitarius (Red-chested cuckoo), eating

 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-04-18 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Wall panel in the Reformierte Kirche Zernez
Used in:
Cultural property of national significance in Switzerland.

The scope should be "Wall panel in ..." or "Plaque in ..." instead of sculpture.  Question Is this plaque notable to justify VI? Was does the plaque describe? --Tagooty (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:*Answer: I have adjusted the scope. This is a very old panel with a Roman text (which I cannot read). If I understand correctly, it is about regained freedom in earlier times. A topical topic at all times.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the explanation. To support this as VI, I would like to see the date of creation, transcription, etc. If it notable, there should be a mention of it in some Internet page or other publication. --Tagooty (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment. I searched the internet and found something about “Graubünden unrest 1618 to 1639”. Maybe it has something to do with that, but my language skills are hopelessly inadequate to find out anything. I do think that it is an old and important panel for the churchgoers of Zernez.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral I am unable to decide for or against with available information. --Tagooty (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added transcription using OCR to the image page. Tried Google translate Latin -> English but not very successful. --Tagooty (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-18 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Faustina I and Antonino Pio medal by Filarete (Museo Correr)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-18 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Nymphaea nouchali var. caerulea - Flower
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-18 05:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathédrale Saint-Benoît de Castres - le plafond du chœur (Choir ceiling)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-04-18 05:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Velutina velutina (Smooth Velutina), shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-04-18 06:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Sorghum bicolor (sorghum noir), seeds, dried specimen
Reason:
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2024-04-18 08:15 (UTC)
Scope:
World War II memorial in Heisykha
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-18 09:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Wildlife photographer wearing camouflage clothing, taking pictures
  • Will be great image for 'ghillie suit scope, not as written. Taking pictures should be removed as it doesn't add to scope and subject cannot be taking wildlife pictures with a photographer standing in front of him! Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When this picture was taken, the subject was in fact taking pictures of small birds perched on branches and the birds didn't seem to see the subject. But the main goal of that day was to search for a wolf pack that had been seen multiple times in the area during the previous weeks. So I think the scope is correct on the "taking pictures" matter. But if needed I can change the "camouflage clothing" bit to "a ghillie suit" as it is more precise on the type of clothing. So do you think "Wildlife photographer wearing a ghillie suit, taking pictures" would be better than "Wildlife photographer wearing camouflage clothing, taking pictures" ? -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2024-04-18 19:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Windmill in Heisykha - entrance
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-18 23:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Pan troglodytes (Chimpanzee), alpha male, sitting
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2024-04-19 01:50 (UTC)
Scope:
The Seaside
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2024-04-19 01:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Seaside State Park
Reason:
Note: Seaside State Park includes the historic building (nominated separately) and the small park that surrounds it. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) -- — Rhododendrites talk | [reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2024-04-19 01:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Rizzo's Fine Pizza, pizza
Reason:
Not sure what the scope should be. I presume for a famous pizza place, a scope for the pizza itself makes sense? -- — Rhododendrites talk | 
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2024-04-19 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Mavathoor Kere (lake) near Kanakapura, Karnataka
Used in:
wikidata:Q124841427
Reason:
In 2020, this image was wrongly labelled as being in Kotagiri (Tamil Nadu), it did not have a geotag, and it was promoted to VI based on this incorrect information. The lake is actually in the neighbouring state of Karnataka. The file name and description have been corrected, and geotag added. I am nominating it for the correct scope, to replace the wrong VI scope. --Tagooty (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-19 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Death of Saint Mamante by Francesco de' Franceschi - Museo Correr
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-19 04:54 (UTC)
Scope:
La famille du comte Harry Kessler à cheval - Raoul Dufy - Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-19 04:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Yama (Buddhism), Musée Georges Labit Toulouse
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-04-19 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Setaria italica (Foxtail millet), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2024-04-19 08:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Vasylykha
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-04-19 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Visitation Dalle funéraire de Gabriel de Monchy, Gruson (Fr)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-04-19 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Visitation Dalle funéraire de Jean Philippe Desmasière, Gruson (Fr)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-04-19 10:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Visitation Dalle funéraire de Louis Plancq, Gruson (Fr)

 Best in Scope -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-04-19 17:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Roman bridge, Trier North side.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-20 01:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops apiaster (European bee-eater) in flight, chronophotography
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-20 01:14 (UTC)
Scope:
2023 Fagradalsfjall eruption and Keilir, south west side
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2024-04-20 01:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Château de Chillon and Dents du Midi, castle lighting at nightfall
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-20 04:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Woman with Skull and Book by Bartholomaus Bruyn (Museo Correr)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-20 04:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Crassula orbicularis var. rosularis - Immature inflorescences and foliage
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-04-20 04:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Bruno by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

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]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (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)
✓ Done Started MVR ErickTErick (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:02 (UTC)
Scope:
El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach

 Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing it according this reccomendation Ezarateesteban 23:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

 Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Anciens bains municipaux de Colmar[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-01-22 12:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-12-29 07:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)

 Comment The light on the cable is a bit distracting. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole (Paris)[edit]

   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2024-03-31 13:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole (Paris)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2024-03-31 13:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole (Paris)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

African chaffinch taxonomy change[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-03-31 18:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Fringilla coelebs africana (African Chaffinch) male
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --BoothSift 04:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-04-11 10:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Fringilla spodiogenys (African Chaffinch) male

 Question @Charlesjsharp: Both images are looking equal. Is "Pending Most Valued Review Candidates" really the right place? --Milseburg (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Bust of Bertrand Russell by Marcelle Quinton, Red Lion Square, London[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Thi (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC) on 2024-03-23 18:48 (UTC)[reply]
Scope:
Bust of Bertrand Russell by Marcelle Quinton, Red Lion Square, London
Used in:
en:Bertrand Russell, de, es
I opened the most valued review. 1656321.jpg seems to be taken before the restoration. --Thi (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Thi (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) on 2024-04-12 11:27 (UTC)[reply]
Scope:
Bust of Bertrand Russell by Marcelle Quinton, Red Lion Square, London

 Comment Ok for the base, but wa can't really see the face. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:02, 18 April 2024 (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[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"