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
52,663 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 47,292 (89.8%) 
Undecided
  
 2,922 (5.5%) 
Declined
  
 2,449 (4.7%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   

View
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-09-10 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Norodom Sihanouk
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-14 09:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Turdus fuscater quindio (Great thrush) male
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-14 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Turdus fuscater gigas (Great thrush) female
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-14 09:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Andigena hypoglauca (Grey-breasted mountain toucan) in flight
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-14 09:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Pipreola riefferii riefferii (Green-and-black fruiteater) male
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-16 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Arremon assimilis assimilis (Grey-browed brushfinch)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-16 09:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Colibri cyanotus cyanotus (Lesser violetear)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-09-17 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Crepipatella dilatata (Dilated Slipper Limpet), shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-17 08:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Aglaiocercus kingii emmae (Long-tailed sylph) male in flight
  •  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment It is not apparent to me from the view angle that this is a A.k. emmae sub-species and not a A.k. kingii. Can you make the case? --GRDN711 (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment On location. ssp kingii is found in the Eastern Andes and ssp emmae in the Central and Western Andes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-17 08:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Aglaiocercus kingii kingii (Long-tailed sylph) male in flight
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-17 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Diglossa cyanea cyanea (Masked flowerpiercer)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2023-09-17 09:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of a Chinese Gentleman (1939) by William George Stirling
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2023-09-17 11:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo del Ridotto (Cesena) - Pio VI Statue
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2023-09-17 13:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Portal, Chimbuk Tourist Centre

Scope changed from Entrance, Chimbuk Tourist Centre to Portal, Chimbuk Tourist Centre ~Moheen (keep talking) 20:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • 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".
  •  Comment I'm doubtful, too. What makes this tourist centre notable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-09-17 13:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Dominique (Paris)
  •  Oppose I think it's nevertheless more useful at review size because all of the elements are shown more clearly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-09-17 13:47 (UTC)
Scope:
15 William, New York City
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2023-09-17 19:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Meghla Hanging Bridge I (east)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-09-18 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Argopecten irradians (Atlantic Bay Scallop), right valve
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-18 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Fire in the Oil Depot at San Marcuola by Francesco Guardi - Gallerie Accademia
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-18 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Double-leaf door in wood and ironwork - 12th century - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Comment Sorry, but I don't see the picture in the category/scope. It's normal ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This doors are beautiful, but the name of the scope is Chair... I think there is a problem. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-18 11:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Lafresnaya lafresnayi longirostris (Mountain velvetbreast) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-18 11:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Lafresnaya lafresnayi longirostris (Mountain velvetbreast) female
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-18 11:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Atlapetes pallidinucha pallidinucha (Pale-naped brushfinch)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-09-18 15:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Indian Head Lighthouse, Summerside, PEI Canada – view from the east
Reason:
Best east view of this historic lighthouse. -- GRDN711 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-09-18 16:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Gare de Montreuil-sur-Mer, view from Place de la Gare
Used in:
Gare de Montreuil-sur-Mer
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2023-09-18 18:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Christopher with Saint Roch and Saint Sabastian by Lorenzo Lotto
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2023-09-18 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Giovanni Mochi - Dante introducing Giotto to Guido da Polenta.

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-18 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
NIO ET5 Touring - right rear view
Used in:
de:Kombinationskraftwagen, de:Nio ET5
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-18 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Fisker Ocean - right rear view
Used in:
de:Fisker Ocean, it:Fisker Ocean, pl:Fisker Ocean
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-18 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Fisker Ronin - left front view
Used in:
en:Fisker Ronin, fr:Fisker Ronin

 Weak support best in scope but poor lightning Ezarateesteban 23:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-18 21:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz X294 - left front view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz X 294, uk:Mercedes-Benz EQE SUV
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-09-18 22:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Morgan Roadster in Montreuil-sur-Mer (Hauts-de-France) - left front view.

I am not sure, but is it really the best or only image of such a Morgan we have in the commons? Please look [1] for example. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Morgan Plus 8, Bj. 1984 (2012-06-10 068 r).JPG is perhaps a better one, but it is a shame that the background shows an Alpine, best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pierre André Leclercq: Here we have an image of the same car, but the right side. Best regards. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Spurzem: Effectively! I agree that it is better than mine, I can suggest it.--Pierre André (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo Pierre André Leclercq, your idea is nice, thank you. But let's see what happens; it will probably be rejected outright. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-09-18 23:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Carlitos Balá, Vicente La Russa, Juan Carlos De Seta y Luis Tasca in Cosa de locos
  •  Comment I don't think this is a useful scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is an article about the film in es.wikipedia, so the scope does seem useful. However, can Commons host this photo, or is it likely to be deleted because of stupid U.S. copyright rules whenever it's nominated for deletion? I think it's likely to be deleted and will have to be uploaded locally on Wikipedias that allow fair use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-09-19 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Argopecten irradians (Atlantic Bay Scallop), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-19 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Christ Crowned with Thorns by Giovanni Battista Langetti - Gallerie Accademia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-19 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Pilar by Rafael Barradas - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
  •  Question This has very different colours to the Google Art Project image and the Museum's website. Are you happy that this is more true to life? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  CommentThe photography of paintings in museums is much more delicate than one might think, the light is different depending on the room and the sources are perfectly multiple and different, incnadecscnece, LED, etc... you can spend several minutes before finding the solution that respects the original colors. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Worth asking as unintentional post-processing can distort colours - just like the many butterfly nominations we get at VI which are oversaturated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-19 09:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Podilymbus podiceps antarcticus (Pied-billed grebe)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-19 09:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Geospizopsis unicolor geospizopsis (Plumbeous sierra finch) male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-19 09:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Geospizopsis unicolor geospizopsis (Plumbeous sierra finch) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-19 17:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Combo-e - right rear view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-19 17:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Renault Clio V (2023) - left rear view
Used in:
de:Renault Clio V
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-19 17:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Renault Grand Kangoo III E-Tech - left rear view
Used in:
de:Renault Kangoo, fr:Renault Kangoo III - Nissan Townstar
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-19 17:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen ID.3 (2023) - left rear view
Used in:
de:VW ID.3
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-19 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Italdesign Zerouno Roadster - left front view
Used in:
fr:Italdesign Zerouno
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-20 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of the French Consul Le Blond by Rosalba Carriera - Gallerie Accademia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-20 05:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Cross from Bagergue - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-20 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Urosticte benjamini (Purple-bibbed whitetip) male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-20 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Melanerpes rubricapillus rubricapillus (Red-crowned woodpecker) male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-20 08:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Zonotrichia capensis costaricensis (Rufous collared sparrow) juvenile
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-09-20 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Le Grillen in Colmar
✓ Done Gzen92 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2023-09-20 19:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Bangladesh Railway Museum (front, west exposure)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2023-09-20 20:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Southwesternmost point of South Africa signs (English only)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-09-21 04:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Bela powisiana, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-21 04:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Horse of St.Mark - Calco Ottocentesco - Gallerie Accademia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-21 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Institution of the Eucharist by Giandomenico Tiepolo - Gallerie Accademia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2023-09-21 11:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Religious paintings by Francesco Francia Presentation of Jesus in the temple and purification of the Virgin

Should "purification of the Virgin" be in the title of the painting? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replyː
Hi ̊@Charlesjsharp, in this particular case it is normally not wrong to shorten the title, but from a formal point of view you are right. I also asked to change the title for a second reason: the date of execution of the painting in the title was wrong. Since I don't have File/Mover rights, I'm currently waiting for the fix. Thanks as always. Terragio67 (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-21 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Poecilotriccus ruficeps melanomystax (Rufous-crowned tody-flycatcher)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-21 08:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Amazilia tzacatl fuscicaudata (Rufous-tailed hummingbird) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-21 08:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Ampelioides tschudii (Scaled fruiteater)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2023-09-21 20:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Sculpture of Buddha Muchalinda, NUS Museum
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-22 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Landscape with Horses at the Drinking Trough by Marco Ricci - Gallerie Accademia

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-09-22 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar frontal from Durro - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-09-22 05:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Lucina aurantia, right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-22 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Aglaeactis cupripennis (Shining sunbeam)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-22 08:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Aglaeactis cupripennis (Shining sunbeam) in flight
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-22 08:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Atlapetes schistaceus (Slaty brushfinch)
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

Pellingen wayside cross 1826[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-05-25 17:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross in Pellingen, Germany.

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-07-07 14:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1826) in Pellingen, Germany.
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Grasshopper[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2008-11-17 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)
  •  Support Fulfills criteria. I prefer the natural light. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: 0
2. Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
Image:Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: Declined.
Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose inferior in resolution --Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Excellent for me! Very good image und very often used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose Less detailed --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support This is much more detailed at review size. We are supposed to be judging these images in terms of how they would be used in articles, which is as thumbnails. "Inferior in resolution" is not a valid reason to oppose a file that is larger and more detailed at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Thumbnail or not, both are excellent, FPs anyway. But here, the contrast between the colours is more attractive. Besides, the grasshopper is looking into the camera, as if he knew what's going on. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Better light here and per others for the support. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Better lighting and composition. --A1Cafel (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-10-16 11:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)

 Comment Why are there two colors for one specy ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment This is very common for grasshoppers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just notices this comment Ikan Kekek. The guidelines say "The image must look good on-screen at the review size" but they don't say that is the moist important criteria or that is what matters. Looking good at review size is a qualifying criteria, that's all. I've no issue with the oppose, just the reason. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, since the entire purpose of VIC is to select images that look best in online articles, it's obvious that we are not choosing them primarily with regard to factors that are relevant to QIC and not to their appearance in online articles. See Commons:Valued image value: "To become a valued image (VI) or a valued image set (VIS) the candidate must be the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects. Usability in printed form is not considered." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Isn’t this a featured picture though? The quality and detail looks pretty good to me… what is it about the detail that is at issue? just trying to understand the objection. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I don't understand your question. The other photo has a much larger grasshopper at review size, so more details are more easily visible. Comparing the images at full size is not the point of VIC. These images are judged on the basis of their usefulness as thumbnails in online articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry to labour this point, but that is not quite correct Ikan Kekek. The guidelines state that a VI image 'Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons.' The guidelines state that 'The image must look good on-screen at the review size', but nowhere can I find that "usefulness as thumbnails" is the most important criteria or even a criteria at all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The entire purpose of VIs is for use online only. I quoted the most relevant language. Do we need to have a discussion about this on the relevant policy page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree about online use, but online users will click on an image thumbnail and that's where the quality shows up. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In which case, it's unclear how VIs are different from QIs or FPs. We should probably have a broader policy discussion, but not in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch, Perth, Western Australia[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
LexKurochkin (talk) on 2023-03-23 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch (Perth, Western Australia)
Used in:

 Comment the blown-out sky is too much distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs and also per my comments on the other image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
LexKurochkin (talk) on 2023-03-23 17:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch (Perth, Western Australia)

The blown-out sky is less distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support per Sebring12Hrs and also because I find the angle somewhat better for this photo. Neither photo is perfect, but I do think this one is better. (By the way, the status is still "discussed" until the most valuable review has been decided.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

agouti[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-03-24 15:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
  •  Comment
    We already have a VI in this scope and I see at list one more image of comparable quality, and both are used. Should we start MVR for this scope?
  •  Comment Yes it is better to go through MVR. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Black-cowled oriole[edit]

   

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

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

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

current VIC for image showing chest feathers

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

Violet patched skipper[edit]

   

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

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

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  •  Support per Lorax. More details are visible at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2022-01-09 17:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  •  Best in Scope. Very good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Best in scope to me. Much more details and there aren't CAs on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment At low resolution, this image works best of the three because the entire building is more clearly and more evenly separated from the background.--Cartoffel (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Reason:
Some minor finishing touches were put on the building since I took the current VI back in April 2021. I have two versions here with slightly different lighting. -- —Percival Kestreltail (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  •  Comment This is the best of the three, but there are other candidates, and I am not up to looking through all the alternatives right now and might not be in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot[edit]

   

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

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

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

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2013-10-22 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-05-20 08:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell
Reason:
Better specimen in a better photographic quality. -- Llez (talk)

 Comment I don't really see why this one is better. Better resolution and sharpness maybe ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Info Yes, exactly; and also a better specimen --Llez (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2009-06-03 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
It is the only image on Commons which shows the entire plant. Parentage: S. asperum × S. officinale. In Denmark, it was previously used as food for pigs, thus it can now be found in clusters here and there. The black roots should be sweet and edible - a property which is also hinted to from the Danish vernacular name, "Foder-Kulsukker", which means "Coal sugar for eating". -- Slaunger (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cartoffel (talk) on 2023-06-06 10:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
I think a cropped version of VI Symphytum xuplandicum plant 2009-05-20.jpg is clearly preferable for reasons of image composition. This here is a somewhat conservative crop and maybe an even more aggressive crop could be even better. -- Cartoffel (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese[edit]

   

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

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

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor lightening. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per A1Cafel. The now-PM also looks very different to what he was 12 years ago. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I don't think the fact that he looks different now is relevant to which photo is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-12 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Anthony Albanese
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Russet-naped wood-rail[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-07 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Aramides cajanea (Grey-necked Wood-rail)
Used in:
en:Grey-necked Wood-rail, es:Aramides cajanea, pt:Saracura-três-potes
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Common ringed plover[edit]

   

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

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

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-07-16 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Charadrius hiaticula (Common ringed plover)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-06-28 18:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-07-08 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans
  •  Support Better, because no distracting car and the right side of the building is visible. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support More details are readily seen at review size in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:18, 20 September 2023 (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"