And we could also have a three quarters view shot from 5 meters, another one from the third corner taken at midday with a distance of 8 meters, etc. But what's the point of creating hundreds of subcategories, so that the purpose of these Valued Images becomes more or less like finding a scope describing exactly the picture itself ? This VI for example was best in scope as the University of Technology of Compiegne, and we could have hundreds of sub-scopes for this university, from the category, like "corridors", "stairs", "close view", etc. That's the same here, in my opinion. The idea is to have a best image for the scope "Wat Si Saket", as to illustrate the page Wat Si Saket on Wikipedia, for example. The light from the other side is not as good, that's why I think this picture here is the best -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting VIs for two sides and the front, and then for the larger context of the paved courtyard. That doesn't seem ridicule-worthy to me. But if you insist on only one scope for this wat, we'll see what others think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this front view (for example) better than this picture for the same scope Wat Si Saket ? No, I don't think so. It would be better for the scope "Wat Si Saket front view" certainly, but not this (wider) one. I have no objection for nominating the other views with different scopes. But my opinion is this one is matching well -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
