Commons:Valued image candidates

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations

Skip to most valued reviews

Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques. Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria. A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope. The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR. If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Valued Image links: Main VI page Valued image candidates Valued image criteria Valued image scope Valued image value Nomination procedure Review procedure Most Valued Review Promotion rules Valued image closure How to nominate an image for VI status Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination. Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review. Adding a new nomination (image) Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button. Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage. Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section: |My-image-filename.jpg so that it looks like this: {{VICs ... |My-image-filename.jpg }} and save the candidate list. Renomination Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review. Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination. Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination. Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in |date={{subst:VI-time}} Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review). Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with |nominator=~~~ Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure. Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}") replace the review parameter with |review= {{subst:VIC-archive}} }} Save the page. There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews. Save the previous reviews archive page Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list. How to open a Most Valued Review There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: === Scope === {{VICs |candidate1.jpg |candidate2.jpg }} where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR. The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing. How to review the candidates How to review an image Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it). Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion. Review procedure On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters. Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six. Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination. Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries. If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued. If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR. Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows: You type You get When *{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~  Comment My comment. -- Example You have a comment. *{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~  Info My information. -- Example You have information. *{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote. *{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria. *{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~  Question My question. -- Example You have a question. *{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria. If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template. Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page. How to update the status Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate: status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border). status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border). status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border). status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border). Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized. Changes in scope during the review period The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

53,398 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			47,965 (89.8%)
Undecided			2,967 (5.6%)
Declined			2,466 (4.6%)

New valued image nominations

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 07:05 (UTC) Scope: Lindner Unitrac 95L used for harvesting hay in Versam, Switzerland  Support All criteria --Ercé (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)  Oppose We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)  Oppose The scope is too broad. I suggest that the scope should concentrate on the truck brand rather than the country. If you do this, yo should crop the image so that the empasis is on the truck, but leave enough of the background in place so that the reader can see the type of terrain. Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)  Info Updated scope + added "Location" label (i.e. geocoding). CC: @Ercé, @Archaeodontosaurus, @Martinvl --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)  Support The new scope is correct --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Scope changed from Agricultural vehicles in Switzerland to Lindner Unitrac 95L used for harvesting hay in Versam, Switzerland --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Info: @Jay.Jarosz: The scope is too narrow. In my view there are two problems: In my view the scope should be "Lindner Unitrac 95L". There are very few images in Commons of this particular vehicle and all the articles in both the English and German Wikipedias deal with all the Linder vehicles in a single article. The "95L" is sufficient to distinguish it from other Linder Unitrac vehicles. There is still too much background. When I look at the picture, the first thing that I see is the mountain in the top centre of the picture and then I see the truck. I suggest that you crop away enugh background so that the first thing that people see is the truck. You can do this by adjusting your crop so that the top of the mountain is no longer in the picture (the top 20% of the image as well as 20-30% of the left hand side of the image). Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 07:09 (UTC) Scope: Village of Tenna - Switzerland  Comment Look at the scope change for the category. There is still one step missing: you must give the geocoding in the caption of the image. The image is perfectly acceptable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)  Comment Thanks Archaeodontosaurus! I've added a caption to the image, please let me know if it looks right now. Also I'm not sure what is meant by "Look at the scope change for the category"? Can you please clarify that part? --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)  Comment I modified the scope syntax, look at the changes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)  Info Thanks @Archaeodontosaurus! Also I added the Location tag to the photo now. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 17:09 (UTC) Scope: Painted trail marker at top of Innerbärg road in Tenna  Comment We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)  Info Done! cc:@Archaeodontosaurus --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Scope changed from Category:Hiking and footpath signs in the canton of Graubünden to Painted trail marker at top of Innerbärg road in Tenna --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 17:26 (UTC) Scope: Lindner Unitrac 95L parked on the side of Heidirüti road in Versam, Switzerland  Comment We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)  Info Add location + updated scope. CC: @Archaeodontosaurus --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Not sure what's going on here. The scope should be the vehicle which is the subject of another nomination File:Lindner Unitrac 95L in Versam.jpg. The location is un important. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Scope changed from Category:Lindner vehicles in Switzerland to Lindner Unitrac 95L parked on the side of Heidirüti road in Versam, Switzerland --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:44 (UTC) Scope: Barbatia decussata, left valve  Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:54 (UTC) Scope: Cettia cetti (museum specimens) (Cetti's warbler (cetti)) eggs  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-27 11:34 (UTC) Scope: Maison communale du quartier Triolo (Villeneuve d'Ascq), view from Rue Yves Decugis Used in: Global usage  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-11-27 19:45 (UTC) Scope: Atlantic Vision - IMO 9211509 – starboard (right side) view Reason: Best starboard view of this ship by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)  Support Useful & used, *But the ship could perhaps have been a bit sharper. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)  Comment @Agnes Monkelbaan: You have a valid point… I may have grabbed the wrong frame of this ship to upload the first time. Hopefully you will like this version better. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Much better now. Thank you.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-11-28 05:36 (UTC) Scope: Detail from the De Heining (gemaal)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-28 06:03 (UTC) Scope: Second project for the funerary monument of Doge Francesco Morosini by Antonio Gaspari  Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-28 06:05 (UTC) Scope: Cilix glaucata – mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-28 06:06 (UTC) Scope: Biga de la Passió - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya  Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-28 07:31 (UTC) Scope: Horornis diphone (Japanese bush warbler (cantans))  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2023-11-28 16:42 (UTC) Scope: Bridge in Park Heremastate Joure.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-28 17:31 (UTC) Scope: Lieu de la bataille de Marquain (1792), view from Chem. de la Pannerie (Tournai) Used in: Global usage Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2023-11-28 21:24 (UTC) Scope: Category:South facade, Stowe House, Buckinghamshire Reason: I believe that this image captures the symmetry and extent of the house without being overwhelmed by the lake in the foreground than any other image in Commons better than any other image in Commons. -- Martinvl (talk)  Comment This image is a better depiction of the south facade. Your image may be best for a scope that includes the lake and lawn. --Tagooty (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC) I agree. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-29 06:22 (UTC) Scope: Give food to the hungry by Antonio Canova in Correr Museum  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-29 06:24 (UTC) Scope: Altar frontal of the Archangels - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya  Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-29 06:23 (UTC) Scope: Cilix glaucata – mounted specimen male ventral  Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-29 07:18 (UTC) Scope: Acrocephalus schoenobaenus (museum specimens) (sedge warbler) eggs  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-29 09:38 (UTC) Scope: Fire station in La Madeleine (Nord), view from rue Jeanne Maillotte Used in: Global usage  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-11-29 15:58 (UTC) Scope: Cooper Moran - IMO 9812547  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-29 18:55 (UTC) Scope: Peugeot e-208 facelift - right front view Used in: de:Peugeot 208 II, en:Peugeot 208, en:List of Peugeot vehicles, it:Peugeot 208 (2019), pl:Peugeot 208, uk:Peugeot 208  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-11-29 21:40 (UTC) Scope: Stock Certificate of Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company, issued 1885.  Support Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-30 06:09 (UTC) Scope: Bust of emperor Philippus II, in Museo Archeologico Nazionale  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-30 06:10 (UTC) Scope: Falcaria lacertinaria – mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-30 06:11 (UTC) Scope: Possession by Néstor Martín-Fernández de la Torre - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-30 09:04 (UTC) Scope: Acrocephalus melanopogon (museum specimens) (moustached warbler (melanopogon)  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)  Question Isn't it better to write the scope as Acrocephalus melanopogon melanopogon (Moustached warbler) eggs or Acrocephalus melanopogon ssp. melanopogon (Moustached warbler) eggs? The location is unimportant. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2023-11-30 15:21 (UTC) Scope: Monumento ai caduti del VIII Agosto 1848 (War Memorial 8 August 1848) by Pasquale Rizzoli, Montagnola Park, Bologna Used in: en:Park of Montagnola, Bologna • fr:Monument aux morts du 8 août 1848 • it:Monumento ai caduti dell'8 agosto 1848 • wikidata:Q3862652  Support Best in scope and useful. --Terragio67 (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sandro Halank (talk) on 2023-11-30 20:50 (UTC) Scope: Dirk Kienscherf Used in: arz:ديرك كينستشيرف, de:Dirk Kienscherf, de:Liste der Mitglieder der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft (17. Wahlperiode), de:Liste der Mitglieder der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft (18. Wahlperiode), de:Liste der Mitglieder der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft (19. Wahlperiode), de:Liste der Mitglieder der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft (20. Wahlperiode), de:Liste der Mitglieder der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft (21. Wahlperiode), de:Liste der Mitglieder der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft (22. Wahlperiode), d:Q1227916 Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: FlorianH76 (talk) on 2023-11-30 18:45 (UTC) Scope: 1993 Russian constitutional crisis Reason: A rare good quality photo of those events uploaded to Wikimedia -- FlorianH76 (talk)  Comment The scope is inappropriate: it must describe what is presented. There must be an English caption and geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. I can translate the caption in English. What kind of the scope would you propose for this image? FlorianH76 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-12-01 06:05 (UTC) Scope: Compianto sul Cristo morto by Antonio Canova - Museo Correr Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-12-01 06:07 (UTC) Scope: Falcaria lacertinaria – mounted specimen male ventral  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-12-01 06:11 (UTC) Scope: Manola with Mantilla and fan  Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-12-01 06:32 (UTC) Scope: Vexillum micra, shell  Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-12-01 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Acrocephalus paludicola (museum specimens) (aquatic warbler) eggs Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rettinghaus (talk) on 2023-12-01 08:51 (UTC) Scope: Portraits of Giulio Regondi Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-12-01 11:20 (UTC) Scope: Ferme d'Escamin (Baisieux), view from Chemin des Pendus Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: DimiTalen on 2023-12-01 12:34 (UTC) Scope: Winter view of Arc 1950 Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: DimiTalen on 2023-12-01 12:38 (UTC) Scope: Winter view of Bourg-Saint-Maurice Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-12-01 17:25 (UTC) Scope: Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Baisieux, view from Rue Louis Deffontaines Used in: Global usage Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-12-01 18:13 (UTC) Scope: Ispidina picta ferrugina (African pygmy kingfisher) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-12-01 18:24 (UTC) Scope: Malimbus nitens (Blue-billed malimbe) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-12-01 18:29 (UTC) Scope: Nigrita bicolor bicolor (Chestnut-breasted nigrita) Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

agouti

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC) Scope: Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 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)  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower

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) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)  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)  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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 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)  Oppose Low details, and a lot of CAs. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 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)  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Fair, I feel the same way about many large categories. But from what I can tell, most of the other files in this category show the building in its unfinished state (you can tell by the brighter blue protective coating on the glass) and/or looking up from a low angle. The best alternatives to my photos is probably Central Park Tower 2022.jpg or a crop of Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 001.jpg. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)  Comment Also, I wouldn't be against adding separate scopes for different angles. The building looks similar but not completely the same on all sides. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)  Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)  Oppose The building stands out worse against the slight cloudy sky than on the current VI. Also the resolution is lower. --Milseburg (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis

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) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)  Oppose In favour of the intended replacement. --Milseburg (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 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)  Info Yes, exactly; and also a better specimen --Llez (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)  Support per Llez --Milseburg (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)

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)  Support OK for me. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)  Support Against the intended replacement. --Milseburg (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 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)  Comment Symphytum uplandicum x Bocking 14.jpg also seems nice enough and very useful, but shows a very different stage of growth. -- Cartoffel (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Intervention not justified the initial image is excellent and has already been judged as such. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Why this crop ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of Vicente Guerrero

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  Comment Good image, good caption, but the scope is too imprecise (it can be improved) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus:  Done the scope has changed--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (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)  Comment There is already an image promoted in VI: you have to go to Pending Most valued review candidates --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)  Done Started MVR ErickTErick (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:02 (UTC) Scope: El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:00 (UTC) Scope: El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach Open for review.

To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

Pending valued image set candidates

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