Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Valued image candidates

Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

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.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI statusEdit

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.


RenominationEdit

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 ReviewEdit

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 candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the VIC subpages of 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 candidatesEdit

How to review an imageEdit

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 procedureEdit

  • On the review page the image <!!--or image set--> 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. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question My question. -- Example
You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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 periodEdit

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 candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
26,965 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
23,789 (88.2%) 
Undecided
  
1,381 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,795 (6.7%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-20 09:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Abraxas grossulariata (Magpie moth) dorsal

  Oppose hmmmm no, sorry: as a VI, I still prefer images with a unicoloured background so that the moth stands out more. Here the background is just too busy with the leaves of different colour, so I prefer either this one or the current VI when looking at the small review size.--Peulle (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)   Comment No problem , except we have different VI categories for mounted specimens. Charles (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 01:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
El Golli Mohamed (talk) on 2017-07-20 10:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops apiaster (European bee-eater)
  •   OpposeIt is important to check the category gallery to check for better images before a nomination (see egret nomination also).Charles (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC) and which photo is better in that category ? can you give me the photo you're tlking about? El Golli Mohamed (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your excellent FP. Following FPC discussion on delist and replace. Charles (talk)

Ok I'll nominate it later. thanks El Golli Mohamed (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Great. Both are super photos. Charles (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-21 08:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Euphydryas aurinia estonica (Marsh fritillary) dorsal

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-21 08:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Siona lineata (Black-veined moth) ventral

  Oppose This one is better on the scope File:Siona lineata02.jpg -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I looked at that one, but felt that mine shows more of the vein detail on both wings. Another opinion? Charles (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, I think EGM has a point. For me it's the shadows in your photo that makes it less clear when viewed in small size.--Peulle (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 01:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-07-22 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Buteo buteo Young Buzzard (Buteo buteo) Is provided with a ring.

  Comment I can't see the ring. Charles (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2017
*Answer: at this time, the ring has yet to be applied.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)(UTC)

  •   Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done. Geocoding added. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As the ring is part of the scope, I think it should be visible in the image – it's there but almost impossible to see. --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per El Grafo and Charles. The ring needs to be clearly visible at thumbnail size for this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-22 07:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Polyommatus semiargus (Mazarine blue) male dorsal

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-22 07:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Gomphus vulgatissimus (Common clubtail) male, lateral view

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-22 07:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Gomphus vulgatissimus (Common clubtail) male dorsal

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-22 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Steintor, Goch (south side)
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-22 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
West facade with church tower of St. Maria Magdalena, Goch
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-22 11:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Central nave inside St. Maria Magdalena, Goch
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-22 15:27 (UTC)
Scope:
"Venus", bronze statue by Aristide Maillol, Perpignan.
Used in:
fr:Aristide Maillol
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-22 15:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes media mounted specimen male ventral

  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-22 15:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) - Choir - St. Anthony of Padua by Girolamo Campagna
  •   Comment, oops - I think the scope is linked to wrong category. DeFacto (talk). 21:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a characteristic of Saint Anthony: he easily loses his way. Thanks... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support best in scope --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-22 16:01 (UTC)
Scope:
The scourge of Snakes by Giambattista Tiepolo Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-23 11:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Marble sarcophagus in the Romanesque monastery, Elne, France

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2017-07-23 12:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Thudufushi: Stilt houses, pier, and "Over Water Restaurant" as seen from the island (= from NE)
Used in:
en:Thudufushi
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-07-23 14:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Works by Merete Røstad
  •   Comment That category does not exist. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Also, this is a work by M. Røstad, not the artist herself. In other words, the scope is unsuitable.--Peulle (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment changed scope --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Now the category is good. The scope; For a work of art it is advisable to give: The name of the work, the name of the author and the place where it can be seen. The whole constitutes a good scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-23 14:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel "Saint-Paul de Reynès", France (view south).
Used in:
fr:Église Saint-Paul du Vila, fr:Projet:Pyrénées-Orientales/Wikidata/Églises

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-23 16:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes media mounted specimen female dorsal
  •   Comment Will be fine, but article says male. Charles (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Sorry, it's a female. I corrected. Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support best in scope --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-23 16:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) - Choir - Pediment of the High Altar, the Annunciation and the Eternal Father by Girolamo Campagna.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-23 16:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Crucifixion of Saint Peter by Luca Giordano, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-23 18:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Cordulia aenea (Downy emerald) male dorsal

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-23 18:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Brachytron pratense (Hairy dragonfly) male, lateral view
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-23 18:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Brachytron pratense (Hairy dragonfly) male, dorsal

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-24 09:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Coenagrion pulchellum (Variable damselfly) female blue form

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-24 09:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Coenagrion pulchellum (Variable damselfly) female dark form

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-24 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Coenagrion pulchellum (Variable damselfly) mating

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-07-24 11:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Kheer Benazir
Used in:
See Global usage
  •   Question Is there a difference between Kheer Benazir and the other Kheers seen in the same category? If so, is there any other Kheer Benazir or is it the only one? However the image quality is quite low... --Basotxerri (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ras67 (talk) on 2017-07-24 13:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Portraits of Alexandra Georgievna of Russia
  •   Support As a portrait, I agree.--Peulle (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful and used. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 16:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Surely the scope should be "Alexandra Georgievna of Russia"? The word "best" is redundant because, by definition, a VI is the best within the scope. Also, the words "in photographs" is redundant - VIs do not normally differentiate between photographs and paintings. May I suggest that the scope be changed to just "Alexandra Georgievna of Russia"?
@Ras67: Please read Commons:Bereiche wertvoller Bilder for more information. Martinvl (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hm, i thought the category is the scope, i've changed it to Portraits of Alexandra Georgievna of Russia.--Ras67 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-07-24 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Thylacodes arenarius, shell

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-24 16:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes media mounted specimen female ventral

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)   Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Same male/female problem as the other one! Charles (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)   Comment In fact it is on the precedent that there was an ambiguity, are females.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-24 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) - Choir - St. Francis of Assisi by Girolamo Campagna
  •   Support Best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-24 16:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Deposition by Tintoretto, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-07-24 17:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Goldenes Tor
  •   Comment The sky shows horrible artefacts throughout all images in that series. I see you converted the camera's DNG into tiff – if that was a straight conversion, it probably doesn't include a de-mosaicing step? That would mean it's basically still an undeveloped RAW file, which could be useful if someone wants to do some work on it but not really useful in terms of using it in an article (which is what VIC is about). --El Grafo (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-25 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Triumph Speed Triple 1050 - right hand side
Used in:
en:Triumph Speed Triple
  •   Support Best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-07-25 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Alpinarium (Galtür), view direction W
Used in:
en:Galtür, de:Galtür

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-07-25 08:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Galtür, view direction S
Used in:
https://de.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Galt%C3%BCr, fr:Galtür, pl:Galtür

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-07-25 08:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Alpinarium (Galtür), view direction NW
Used in:
voy:de:Galtür
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-25 10:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Carterocephalus palaemon (Chequered skippers) mating

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-07-25 10:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Tipula maxima (Crane flies) mating

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-25 15:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Medieval door lock at Église Saint-Saturnin de Montesquieu-des-Albères, France.
Reason:
The door lock is registered by the French Ministry of Culture: Base Mémoire: APMH00255887 -- Palauenc05 (talk)

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
BluesyPete (talk) on 2017-07-24 10:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Elephant seal crawling
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-25 16:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Stolidoptera tachasara mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-25 16:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel Badoer Giustinian in San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) - Left wall
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-25 16:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Boccaccio Boccaccino - Sposalizio di santa Caterina con i santi Rosa, Pietro e Giovanni Battista, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-25 18:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Shieldaig from the south
Used in:
en:Shieldaig
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-25 18:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Vaulted ceiling, Exeter Cathedral
Used in:
en:Exeter Cathedral
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-25 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Loch an Lòin from the west
Used in:
en:Scottish Highlands
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

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 candidatesEdit

New valued image set nominationsEdit

  This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.

Closed valued image set candidatesEdit
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates
commons.m.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-30
229922
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MG4WMZ4357KITABQO7ATLPPNUSFJXH6S
<urn:uuid:1eb50366-9fc9-496b-a04c-4bf15b5e897d>
2017-07-26T01:11:14Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:X4KPBOO32QJRKLPATMTM4D3BOCNRR5YK
<urn:uuid:474ebbb7-2497-450e-838f-7a6594ba1cee>
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates
length
response
<urn:uuid:d572c538-b8f4-4552-87ba-ce892ca2f1c1>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-82-71.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-30
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf