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

48,682 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			43,541 (89.4%)
Undecided			2,761 (5.7%)
Declined			2,380 (4.9%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rettinghaus (talk) on 2022-07-12 09:51 (UTC) Scope: Portraits of Alexandre Ropicquet Used in: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q110222094 Reason: only known portrait of Ropicquet -- Rettinghaus (talk)  Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: H2O(talk) on 2022-07-13 07:14 (UTC) Scope: Château de l'Aile, view from northeast  Comment We must add a geocoding in caption. It would be good to give the direction of the exposure of the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)  Info done. I add the "Cultural property of national significance in Switzerland" template. --H2O(talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Perfect for geocoding. It would be good to give the direction of the exposure of the image in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Question @Archaeodontosaurus: , bonsoir, je ne comprend pas bien ta demande. J'ai mis l'emplacement de l'objet avec l'orientation de la façade vue et l'emplacement du photographe avec la direction de la prise de vue. Que faut-il d'autres ou de différent ? Merci. --H2O(talk) 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment Bonjour, pour une objet complexe les images sont totalement différentes suivant la position. Elles sont donc toutes éligibles en VI avec des scopes spécifiques. Dans ton cas il faut rajouter northeast exposure au scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Info  Done --H2O(talk) 06:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Support. Very good and useful image, often used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Steindy (talk) on 2022-07-14 02:52 (UTC) Scope: Roland Goriupp, goaökeeper coach of Austria You have taken other images that are better for this scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment IMO File:Austria U21 vs. Turkey U21 20131114 (003).jpg better fitted this scope. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-14 04:18 (UTC) Scope: Pardaleodes edipus (Common pathfinder) underside  Support Useful and Used. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-07-14 10:26 (UTC) Scope: Mourning for victims of 2018 Shanghai knife attack Used in: zh:2018年上海市世界外国语小学砍人事件 Reason: It depicts an historic or rare event, that neighborhoods and parents gathered at Shanghai World Foreign Language Primary School West Guilin Street campus to mourn victims in 2018 Shanghai knife attack, which has a high historic value and encyclopediac value. -- A1Cafel (talk) Previous reviews  Comment. A very sad occasion. But I can't see much in the picture because the main part is grossly overexposed. I am amazed that this photo is marked as "one of the most outstanding image files". -- Spurzem (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)  Support This photo was declined at QIC because of the fault you mention and others, but it's clear enough as a thumbnail and on the file page to be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: Should we not see especially on a valuable picture what it wants to say? I recognize a group of people, some with smartphones and camera, one man seems to be praying, but the partly overexposed picture says nothing more. Maybe that it is useful to illustrate an article but I don't think that it is a VI. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC) We simply disagree, which is fine. I think it's clearly an outdoor shrine to people who died, with a crowd of reverent people around it. And if it's useful to illustrate an article on the subject, that makes it a VI to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Support per Ikan. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-15 02:32 (UTC) Scope: Trachemys scripta elegans (Red-eared slider) head  Comment The image is not in the correct category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC) scope edited but image not nominated by me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Support ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Imehling (talk) on 2022-07-15 02:35 (UTC) Scope: Panoramics of Teide Used in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teide_National_Park  Comment The scope is too wide, you have to focus it to give the direction of the shot. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Scope is too broad. --A1Cafel (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-15 02:36 (UTC) Scope: Coat of arms (1602) of the armourer Conrad Hanff in Judengasse 23, Trier.  Support Useful & Used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Fondycardinals (talk) on 2022-07-15 02:41 (UTC) Scope: Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin Government Center Reason: Best image of the Fond du Lac County Government Center -- Fondycardinals (talk)  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Partly obstructed by trees. Sorry but IMO not the best. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Gildir (talk) on 2022-07-15 04:05 (UTC) Scope: Skylab Rescue Command Module, artist's rendering Used in: de:Skylab Rescue, Skylab, Skylab Rescue, fi:Skylab Rescue, fr:Skylab Rescue, ja:スカイラブ3号, no:Skylab Rescue, pl:Skylab Rescue, ru:Скайлэб-спасатель  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment Gildir, we are not viewing a rescue. I think the proper scope is "Skylab Rescue Command Module, artist's rendering". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Scope changed from Skylab Rescue to Skylab Rescue Command Module, artist's rendering --Gildir (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2022 (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".  Support in this scope. Thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-15 04:39 (UTC) Scope: Der Aa-kerk (Groningen) Brick buttress. (Northwest side)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-15 05:30 (UTC) Scope: Phryxus caicus specimen - male ventral  Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-15 05:31 (UTC) Scope: Portrait de Diane-Gabrielle de Thianges-Mancini, duchesse de Nevers - Jacob Ferdinand Voet - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Best in Scope--A1Cafel (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-15 05:33 (UTC) Scope: Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Choir - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.  Support Useful and beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-14 17:34 (UTC) Scope: Turdus philomelos philomelos (Song thrush) Reason: Many images but I think this shows the diagnostic Vs well -- Charlesjsharp (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Question You may have mentioned this at some point in the past and if so, I apoligize for forgetting your answer. In the scope, why is the specific epithet repeated in the binomial species name? --GRDN711 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Question In the past I had a bird nom rejected because the image did not show all of the feet. In this case, while the image is of good quality and shows the Vs on the breast of the bird really well, this bird appears to have only one leg. I don't think this is characteristic of the species. Can you comment? --GRDN711 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC) the repeat of the binomial defines the suspecies. It is not essential to mention this for the nominate ssp but is helpful for VI. Two legs would be better than one if the rest of the image is as good. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. Unfortunately, on the nominatiion, I  Oppose with regret. The image is excellent quality but IMHO for VI, all of the subject should be showing. I would accept a feature being partially obscured but a whole leg is beyond that. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Question I had imagined that the fuzzy shape behind the first leg could be the foot of the second leg. Is it true that he only had one leg? This would be very exceptional and would therefore deserve a new scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC) No Archaeodontosaurus, it had two legs. One is hitched up. Quite unusual for a passerine bird I think. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the explanations, I maintain my vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-07-15 08:03 (UTC) Scope: Official portraits of George W. Bush as president  Support While there are portraits from other years, and other extracted versions of this image, this 14 January 2003 original appears to be the best image. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-15 08:47 (UTC) Scope: Zygaena lonicerae (Narrow-bordered five-spot burnet) dorsal, showing hindwing  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-15 10:42 (UTC) Scope: Église Saint-Martin de Nieppe, France, viewed from the northeast. Can the perspective be corrected on the right? -- Spurzem (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Done right-corrected perspective. Thanks for the advice.--Pierre André (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment User:Pierre André Leclercq, I would call the scope incorrectly ordered. France applies to Nieppe, not to northeast (Nieppe is in fact in northwestern France). I suggest this for the scope: "Église Saint-Martin de Nieppe, France, viewed from the northeast." That is, if France needs to be mentioned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: I fixed the misordered scope, thanks for the advice. --Pierre André (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope, thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-15 10:58 (UTC) Scope: Enamel sign from the office of the formerly independent community Kärlich in the Stadtmuseum Mülheim-Kärlich  Best in Scope--Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Mosbatho (talk) on 2022-07-15 20:57 (UTC) Scope: 1S32 radar unit  Best in Scope -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:34 (UTC) Scope: St. Nicolaas (Muiden) Main entrance.  Support Best in scope. --Tagooty (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:47 (UTC) Scope: Josep Subirachs Retrato of Antoni Gaudi (Portrait of Antoni Gaudi by Josep Subirachs) - Sagrada Família Barcelona  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:50 (UTC) Scope: Phryxus caicus specimen - female dorsal  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:52 (UTC) Scope: Portrait de Marie-Charlotte de la Porte de La Meilleraye-Mazarin, marquise de Richelieu - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Comment Please check the linked category --Llez (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Done thanks...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment Sorry, at the moment the nomination is linked to the category "Portraits of women by Jacob Ferdinand Voet" whereas the picture is not in this gallery, but in "Female portrait paintings by Pierre Mignard" and also in "Marie Charlotte de La Porte de La Meilleraye". Please link to one of these categories (I'd prefer the latter) --Llez (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Done The subject was difficult because the painting was recently reassigned to Pierre Mignard. Thank you for your vigilance. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:44 (UTC) Scope: Ayyappancoil Hanging Bridge: view from south portal during low water season Used in: wikidata:Q113078368 Reason:  Info During the SW monsoon, the Idukki reservoir covers the grassy expanses and rises close to the bridge deck. This view is characteristic of the 6 months prior to the monsoon when the reservoir is well below the high water mark. --Tagooty (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:48 (UTC) Scope: Ayyappancoil Hanging Bridge: panorama from west during low water season Used in: en:Ayyappancoil Reason:  Info During the SW monsoon, the Idukki reservoir covers the grassy expanses and rises close to the bridge deck. This view is characteristic of the 6 months prior to the monsoon when the reservoir is well below the high water mark. --Tagooty (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-16 04:59 (UTC) Scope: Murals of Dinosauria skeletal diagrams in Taiwan Previous reviews  Oppose there is no interest for VI --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-16 05:28 (UTC) Scope: Unio pictorum (Painter's Mussel), greenish form, right valve  Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-16 09:19 (UTC) Scope: Melursus ursinus inornatus (Sri Lankan sloth bear) male head  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Subhrajyoti07 on 2022-07-16 09:22 (UTC) Scope: Axis axis in the Jim Corbett National Park Used in: en:Jim Corbett National Park Reason: High resolution good quality image and best in scope -- Subhrajyoti07  Oppose For animals location is not part of the scope. Only visually distinct aspects such as male/female, juvenile/adult, etc. See guidelines COM:Valued_image_scope#Animals. There are already a number of VIs of Axis axis. --Tagooty (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC) @Tagooty: I don't understand your interpretation of the rule. Where is it specifically written that a scope like this is not permitted? Regards -- Spurzem (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC) See the first clause in COM:Valued_image_scope#Animals "General rule is: one scope per species". The species Axis axis is present in Corbett and in many other places. AFAIK, there is no sub-species that is peculiar to Corbett. This interpretation was reiterated by @Charlesjsharp: and @Ikan Kekek: when I had made a similar nomination in the past. --Tagooty (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Agreed. A scope for every location you could find a species (or car) would be very silly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC) So, if I understand your interpretation of the rules correctly, there can only exist two valuable images of lions in the commons for example: one of a male and one of a female. Is it correct that way? So it doesn't matter whether the animal is photographed from behind or in front, whether it is standing, lying, running or jumping, whether it is eating or sleeping, in which surroundings it is, and so on. Two valuable images are enough!? -- Spurzem (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC) This is not correct, there can be many sub-scopes. Please see clauses 2, 4 and 5 in COM:Valued_image_scope#Animals. There are many examples of promoted VIs that follow such sub-scopes. --Tagooty (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-07-16 15:28 (UTC) Scope: Flower bud of a Allium sphaerocephalon  Support. Excellent, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Question While I like this image, another one, also made by you, seems to better illustrate the scope. Why do you prefer this image for VI? --GRDN711 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)]] Answer: Thanks for your question. At some point you have to make a choice. I personally find this less stiff and the photo is FP.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC) The other one would have been FP if nominated, too, and probably would have gotten more votes, and the flower is larger at thumbnail size in that one. Is stiffness a problem for giving an accurate representation of this flower? Because on the face of it, the other photo is best in scope as a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)  Oppose per above, but I'm always happy to consider an argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)  Support with explanation. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-16 17:43 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1616) near Ettringen (Eifel), Germany.  Support. Beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-16 17:41 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross in Walporzheim, Walporzheimer Straße/Pfaffenbergstraße.  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-17 04:13 (UTC) Scope: Portrait de Marie-Anne de Bourbon, princesse de Conti - François de Troy - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Support Useful & Used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-17 04:15 (UTC) Scope: Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Choir organ - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.  Support Useful & Used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-17 04:17 (UTC) Scope: La tour Pierre de Brens - Raymond Tournon - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Gaillac  Support Best in scope, and I love this painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-17 04:29 (UTC) Scope: Sculptures in Muiden Muiden, house on Herengracht (sculpture)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2022-07-17 04:43 (UTC) Scope: Ahmedabad University: Amrut Mody School of Management (AMSOM) building Used in: en:Ahmedabad University • wikidata:Q99286986  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-17 06:37 (UTC) Scope: Unio pictorum (Painter's Mussel), greenish form, left valve  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-17 09:08 (UTC) Scope: Basalt cross from 1662 at the church of monastery Maria Martental  Best in Scope --H2O(talk) 15:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: H2O(talk) on 2022-07-17 13:17 (UTC) Scope: Ancien Hôtel de Ville de Dampremy  Best in Scope, useful and used. But I would add from where the photo is taken. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)  Info  Done, but the location of the shot is approximate because I don't have GPS on my camera and the information is therefore not in the EXIFs (Google translate). Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-17 15:41 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1631) near Bell (Mayen-Koblenz)  Support. Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-07-17 21:07 (UTC) Scope: Winter Harbor, Maine Used in: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Winter Harbor Reason: Given that it is dispersed, this is a good representative image of this small harbor town in Maine. -- GRDN711 (talk) File:Winter Harbor.jpg, although slanted, seems better in scope to me. Why not? (By the way, you don't mean disbursed=spent.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment Thank you, Ikan, for the wording note (corrected). I must have been thinking about the money I do not have when I really meant “dispersed” as in distributed or spread over a wide area. Winter Harbor is indeed spread out. The image you reference does not show much of the town but primarily shows the ferry dock in Henry Cove to the east. This is where you catch the local ferry to Bar Harbor, or sight seeing boats to Petit Manan. There is also a separate commercial harbor for fishing boats and the fishing cooperative. A small main street of two blocks of stores and restaurants is partially shown on the left. IMO, this nomination best shows most of Winter Harbor as a collection of homes, cottages, B&Bs, the post office, boat launch facilities and three restaurants. It was taken from the ferry dock without benefit of a drone. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)  Support OK, I defer to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-18 04:33 (UTC) Scope: Muiden Groote sea lock (southwest side)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-18 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Portrait d'Armande-Félice de Mazarin, Marquise de Mailly - Pierre Gobert - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-18 05:08 (UTC) Scope: Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Chapel of the baptismal font - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-18 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Église Saint-Michel de Gaillac - Interior view  Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-07-18 06:36 (UTC) Scope: Atmosphere of Mars  Question I'm curious about the scope "Atmosphere ...". The image appears to show mostly surface features. A scope such as "??? hemisphere view of Mars" may be more appropriate? --Tagooty (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-18 06:44 (UTC) Scope: Rear view of a 1956 Renault 4 CV  Support. Very good and useful; probably the only of this view in the commons -- Spurzem (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-18 09:23 (UTC) Scope: Consecration of the altar of the Wallfahrtskirche Maria Martental in 1975  Best in Scope Very rare historical image. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-18 10:32 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1680) in Dernau, Germany.  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-18 18:19 (UTC) Scope: Relief of Veil of Veronica over the old portal of St. Mauritius Kärlich, 15th century  Best in Scope--Palauenc05 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-18 19:09 (UTC) Scope: Unio pictorum (Painter's Mussel), brown form, left valve  Support. Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Lorax (talk) on 2022-07-18 23:40 (UTC) Scope: Eaton Hollow Overlook looking west (Shenandoah National Park, VA)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2022-07-19 01:06 (UTC) Scope: All Saints Way in Boston  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-19 04:29 (UTC) Scope: railway station Groningen Detail of the upper part of the main building. Ornaments (North north west side.)  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-19 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Phryxus caicus specimen - female ventral  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-19 05:11 (UTC) Scope: Vue du château du duc d'Aiguillon à Veretz - Henri Joseph van Blarenberghe - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-19 05:13 (UTC) Scope: Eve et Adam chassés du Paradis (Eve and Adam expelled from Paradise) - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Gaillac  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-19 07:42 (UTC) Scope: Kapelle Am Guten Mann (Mülheim-Kärlich), built in 1838, view from northwest  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-19 08:25 (UTC) Scope: Nave of church "St. Johannes Apostel" in Dernau, Germany.  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-19 10:34 (UTC) Scope: V8 engine of a 1971 Buick Riviera  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Gildir (talk) on 2022-07-19 08:52 (UTC) Scope: Jonny Kim Used in: Jonny Kim, fa:جانی کیم, fr:Jonny Kim, id:Jonny Kim, it:Distintivo di astronauta degli Stati Uniti, pt:Grupo 22 de Astronautas da NASA, pt:Jonny Kim, zh-yue:喬納森·金, Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-19 12:00 (UTC) Scope: Engine of MG B Roadster from 1979, right side Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2022-07-19 13:17 (UTC) Scope: Ahmedabad University, University Centre building, view from south-east Used in: en:Ahmedabad University • wikidata:Q113149048 Can you correct the perspective? -- Spurzem (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Bittium glareosum, shell

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2014-09-04 05:42 (UTC) Scope: Bittium glareosum, Shell  Best in Scope --LivioAndronico talk 08:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)  Oppose Generally less detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-06-05 07:47 (UTC) Scope: Bittium glareosum, shell Reason: This is a much better preserved specimen --Llez (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC) -- Llez (talk)  Support More details. But do the differences in color reflect differences in subspecies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)  Info There are no accepted subspecies (see [1]) --Llez (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)  Support per nom. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)  Question I don't understand the colour difference. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)  Info There are many species with variable colour and/or pattern, see for example here, here, here, here, here (in the latter example not only the same species but the same population, collected in an area of a few square meters), and many more. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Porta Nigra

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC) Scope: Porta Nigra Used in: de:Porta Nigra, en:Porta Nigra, fr:Porta Nigra ...  Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm  Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)  Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 1 neutral => Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)  Oppose per comments on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC) Scope: Porta Nigra Reason: good perspective and very high sharpness IMO -- Wolf im Wald  super! --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)  Oppose There is already an existing VI for this scope of the Porta Nigra. This nomination should be withdrawn and re-nominated in MVR if the nominator wishes to contest the existing VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Support I prefer this one, because there are no cars in the foreground. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with Palauenc05. Without cars in the foreground makes this image more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Support It also lacks competition from the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)  Support IMHO an exemplary hi-res image, certainly a VI. Congrats: 44 images ... and, as yet, I haven't detected a single stitching error, even in the multitude of leaves at right. Which software do you use? Tremendous detail - every single chisel mark visible. Quite often hi-res images with low contrast do not readily appeal to the eye when rendered at lo-res, say a few hundred pixels each edge, but this image sports enough colour and contrast to please at any resolution. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Römer

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC) Scope: Römer (Frankfurt am Main)  Comment I am ready to support it, but I suggest to internationalize the scope wording—e.g “Römer (Frankfurt am Main)”. --Myrabella (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Info scope changed from Frankfurter Römer to Römer (Frankfurt am Main) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Request I must have been absent-minded because I forgot to ask you to geocode that image. So I do it now! --Myrabella (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Info geocode added ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Support Quite OK to me now, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)  Oppose as not the whole of the building per the other nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC) Scope: Römer (Frankfurt am Main) Reason: good perspective, nice light and good overall quality IMO -- Wolf im Wald  Support. This image is valuable and useful too for me. But I like your other image of the Römer with front view still better. Perhaps you should spezify the scope. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)  Comment Hallo Lothar, ich antworte dir mal auf Deutsch. Das Problem ist, dass auch die beiden nicht rötlichen Gebäudeteile rechts im Bild zum Römer gehören. Das wusste ich damals nicht, als ich das alte Bild geschossen habe. Daher denke ich, dass das neue Bild anschaulicher ist und das alte sollte seine VI-Auszeichnung verlieren. Am Scope sollte daher wohl nichts verändert werden. Grüße und danke für dein Pro! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)  Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Ich verstehe den Sinn des Manövers nicht. Mir gefallen beide Bilder gut, und da sie aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln aufgenommen sind, könnten beide ausgezeichnet werden. Aber mir ist es egal; ich verstehe sowieso nicht, nach welchen Kriterien hier bewertet wird, zumal es von heute auf morgen anders sein kann. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Ich finde das andere Bild bietet keinen Mehrwert und da es ohnehin technisch veraltet und fotografisch schlechter ist, braucht es auch keine Auszeichnung. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)  Info The building is not fully represented in the old photo because it consists of 5 parts and the two on the right, which look slightly different in color, are cut off. In addition, the old picture does not show very well that the building facade has a bend on the left side between the first and the 2nd part of building near the blue EU flag (see [2]). -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)  Support per "Info" above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Horses of the Basque Country

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:58 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Q28, if horses of the Basque Country are visually recognizable as different from horses in other places and there is as yet no valued image in this category, please nominate the photo you consider best in scope. I see no reason for us to rate several images before you've taken those steps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Do you mean that I only keep the nomination of one pic and withdraw all the other very close pictures? Q28 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek\ Q28 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Please use the normal nomination process, not Most Valuable Review. Decide which picture is best in scope, as I said. But first, make sure you know that horses from the Basque Country are visually distinguishable from horses from other places. Are they? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek, although the answer is no, in the previous nomination, "horse" was considered too wide, so I can only use "Horses of the Basque Country" as the scope of nomination. Q28 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC) You can't unless there's something recognizably different about the appearance of Basque horses than horses in, say, Asturias. Valued image scopes must be visually distinguishable. Please read Commons:Valued image scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:59 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 01:07 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:59 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Previous reviews Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:37, 17 July 2022 (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

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