Commons:Valued image candidates

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 candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the VIC subpages of the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR. The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing. How to review the 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 <!!--or image set--> is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters. Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six. Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination. Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries. If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued. If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR. Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows: You type You get When *{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~  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

26,909 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			23,733 (88.2%)
Undecided			1,381 (5.1%)
Declined			1,795 (6.7%)

New valued image nominations

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Atamari (talk) on 2017-07-13 09:38 (UTC) Scope: Stadion am Zoo Scope: Stadium at the Zoo. (Detailed description of the scope: the view of the stadium as a whole, not the stadium restaurant [Hubertusallee 4], the stadium shield wall and not the stadium gym) Used in: de:Stadion am Zoo Reason: Best view of the stadium from church tower. The wall of the stadium tribune is a cultural monument of Wuppertal. -- Atamari (talk)  Support best in scope --El Grafo (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)  Oppose I think the scope is too wide. In order for it to match your reasoning, "(vew from church tower)" should be added. You can also choose a different wording, just make sure it's not too general. --Peulle (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment This is the only image we have giving a general overview of the building from its main façade, so I think the broad scope is perfectly fine here. Remember that scopes are supposed to represent what people might be looking for when searching for an image (and not to be a description of the images content) – I think if someone wants to find an image to put at the top of a wikipedia article about the stadium, this is exactly what they would want to get. However, it certainly wouldn't hurt to make the scope a bit more specific. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment You are of course aware, then, that if any new photo of the general stadium arrives on Commons, you'll have competition for the VI and this one may easily be delisted?--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment Sure, that's how it's supposed to be. If something better comes along we have a MVR, no big deal. --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment El Grafo is right. In the case of a single image the scope can be quite wide. But we can hope that we will have other images of this building and to avoid problems a more precise sope would be desirable. The orientation of the view should suffice. Personally I regret the tilt which is disagreeable and which would be easy to correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  Question Was the scope changed, or is that extra text just added on?--Peulle (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment Sorry, with this scope change I'll have to withdraw my support – that's ridiculously over-precise and not useful. Proposal: I change the scope to something I think we all can agree upon and leave the voting to the rest of you – @Atamari, Peulle, Archaeodontosaurus: how does that sound for you? --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Question You had made me completely confused. How far should I specify the focus? --Atamari (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC) {{c|Stadion am Zoo}} - West exposure Could be a good scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Or {{c|Stadion am Zoo}} - view from Hauptkirche Sonnborn spire, as proposed by Peulle above. The trick is trying to keep it as short and broad as possible but as precise as necessary. --El Grafo (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, those suggestions do look better.--Peulle (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)	Gold-Haus Start of Gilding Nearly completed Finished Project "Gold-Haus" Review it! (edit) Nominated by: C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-07-15 06:49 (UTC) Description: Boran Burchhardt wanted to gild the Hamburg City quarter of Veddel, and was given grants to do one house VISC of: ːCategory:Gold-Haus The groups of images are not admitted to the competition, but a montage of the three images would be perfect and didactic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Peulle (talk) on 2017-07-16 12:58 (UTC) Scope: The Sundland business park seen from the top of the Drammen Spiral. Reason: Best in scope (3 images on Commons, this has the most useful zoom). -- Peulle (talk) Open for review.	View promotion Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-16 14:35 (UTC) Scope: Pipe organ of St. Johann, Abtei Hamborn, Duisburg  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-16 14:36 (UTC) Scope: Baptismal font in St. Johann, Abtei Hamborn, Duisburg  Support Good and useful image.--Peulle (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-16 14:37 (UTC) Scope: Haus Hartenfels, Duisburg (west facade)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: George Chernilevsky talk on 2017-07-16 16:39 (UTC) Scope: Lucanus cervus (Stag beetle), male in wild Used in: ba:Болан-ҡуңыҙ, es:Lucanus cervus, it:Lucanus cervus, pt:Vacaloura, vi:Lucanus cervus and other  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)  Oppose George, I would support another of your images as much better for VI File:Lucanus cervus male 2008 G1.jpg. Charles (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Support I think this one is the best since we're only looking at them as thumbnails in VI. The colour is better IMO.--Peulle (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC) We are not just looking at thumbnails in VI. Charles (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC) What I mean is that the VI review size is not the same as in QIC (that surprised me when I came here, but it makes sense): "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered.".--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment Peulle is right, The coloring of elytra is very typical for this species. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-16 17:01 (UTC) Scope: Xylophanes xylobotes mounted specimen male ventral  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-16 17:03 (UTC) Scope: Interior of Chiesa dei Gesuiti (Venice) - Counter-façade - Coat of arms of Da Lezze family  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-16 17:05 (UTC) Scope: Cappella San Pasquale Bajlon of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice)  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-16 20:51 (UTC) Scope: Medieval door lock at Église "Sainte-Marie de Serralongue", France. Used in: ca:Santa Maria de Serrallonga  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-16 21:29 (UTC) Scope: Right capital of the main gate of Église Sainte-Marie de Brouilla, France. Used in: ca:Santa Maria de Brullà, de:Ste-Marie (Brouilla)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC) But there seems to be a write error in the scope. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the hint, it must be "France", of course.--Palauenc05 (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2017-07-17 16:04 (UTC) Scope: Turbo sarmaticus (South African Turban), shell  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-17 16:16 (UTC) Scope: Nephele subvaria mounted specimen male dorsal  Support useful. Charles (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-17 16:17 (UTC) Scope: Campo Santa Margherita (Venice) North exposure  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-17 16:19 (UTC) Scope: Cappella San Pasquale Bajlon of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) Addolorata by Antonio Vassilacchi  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-17 20:41 (UTC) Scope: Medieval tombstone at the main portal of Abbey church of Saint-Génis-des-Fontaines, France. Used in: fr:Abbaye de Saint-Génis-des-Fontaines  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	View (withdrawn) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-17 21:52 (UTC) Scope: Abraxas grossulariata (Magpie moth) dorsal  Oppose As a thumbnail I prefer a different image with a single-coloured background, to offer better contrast to the colours of the butterfly. I think these two ( 1 or 2 ) are more suited as VI.--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment I can't remember the outcome of the discussion on thumbnails, but I thought the rules say the images has to look good at thumbnail, but that is NOT how we determine value. The other images do not have anything like the definition. I am very happy to upload a high definition image of this same moth taken in daylight. Flash photographs do always divide opinion, but I choose this one for its visual impact. Charles (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC) As was made clear to me when I nominated this church image, the fact that your image has higher resolution and is generally of higher quality (which it is) is less relevant in VIC. What matters here is how the image looks in web articles and such, at a fairly low resolution (the guideline specifies 360 x 480 pixels). Now, unless I have misunderstood something, the images I linked to are in the same scope as this one, right? I feel that having a white single-coloured background makes the moth stand out more so you can see its colours better in the lower resolutions, hence my vote here.--Peulle (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination No problem. New nomination on its way. Charles (talk) Can be closed as declined
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-17 21:53 (UTC) Scope: Aporia crataegi (Black-veined white) male ventral  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-17 21:54 (UTC) Scope: Coenonympha glycerion (Chestnut heath) ventral  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-17 22:06 (UTC) Scope: Lintel of "Eglise Saint-Michel" in Saint-Génis-des-Fontaines, France. Used in: fr:Abbaye de Saint-Génis-des-Fontaines  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Cvmontuy (talk) on 2017-07-18 03:44 (UTC) Scope: Torre Reforma  Support The angle makes this the best in scope IMO.--Peulle (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-18 12:00 (UTC) Scope: Statue of Saint Sebastian in Église Saint-Sébastien de Palau-del-Vidre, France. Used in: fr:Église Saint-Sébastien de Palau-del-Vidre  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-18 13:05 (UTC) Scope: Parnassius mnemosyne (Clouded apollo) female ventral  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-18 13:07 (UTC) Scope: Melitaea athalia lachares (Heath fritillary) dorsal Reason: I have checked all the images in the category and I cannot find any photos taken in Sweden, Norway, Finland or Estonia where this ssp. occurs -- Charles (talk)  Question Are you saying the scope is the Heath fritillary in Nordic countries? How is the location relevant? I would think this image is competing against all other "Melitaea athalia lachares (Heath fritillary) dorsal" images on Commons, no?--Peulle (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Support What Charles means is that the quality of the determination is reinforced by its localization. That is a good argument. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment Lachares is the sub species. This sub species only occurs in these four countries and my point was that I've checked the geolocation of all the other images (none of which are identified with any sub-species) and none were photographed in the four countries. Saves everyone a lot of time checking! Charles (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)  Question So an image of the insect in its natural habitat is worth more as a VI than - say - an image taken in a terrarium in New York?--Peulle (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Absolutely. For an animal or plant species, an image is more interesting if it has been taken in a natural habitat and if possible in its original habitat. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC) And it is very dangerous to assume any animal bred in captivity is a pure specimen of a particular sub-species. We should not be promoting 'zoo' images unless they are the only ones we have. Charles (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Interesting. Thanks for the info. :) --Peulle (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-18 13:09 (UTC) Scope: Melitaea athalia lachares (Heath fritillary) ventral  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-18 16:13 (UTC) Scope: Nephele subvaria mounted specimen male ventral  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-18 16:21 (UTC) Scope: Crucifixion by Tintoretto by Tintoretto, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-18 16:18 (UTC) Scope: Interior of Chiesa dei Gesuiti (Venice) - Counter-façade - Monument to Andrea Da Lezze  Support Useful. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 17:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-07-18 12:27 (UTC) Scope: Azim Khan's Tomb, Plaque Used in: See Global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-07-18 19:34 (UTC) Scope: Central Shaheed Minar, Sylhet Used in: See Global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-07-18 20:07 (UTC) Scope: Mahara Bhaban (west-east axis) Used in: See Global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-18 20:56 (UTC) Scope: Glenfinnan railway station ticket office and waiting room from the north-east Used in: en:Glenfinnan railway station  Support Seems like the only image available in the scope. --Peulle (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-07-19 10:41 (UTC) Scope: Ford P6-12m, front view  Support Best in scope, IMO (the other two aren't as good), although if you want it to display even better in articles, you could get away with cropping the sides a little bit.--Peulle (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-19 13:54 (UTC) Scope: Bossed keystone (13th ctry.) at the Chapel Notre-Dame-des-Anges (Perpignan)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-19 18:01 (UTC) Scope: Haidplatz, Regensburg (view from the east)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-19 18:02 (UTC) Scope: Building Haidplatz 3-4, Regensburg  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-07-19 18:04 (UTC) Scope: Renaissance arcades of the house Unter den Schwibbögen 2, Regensburg  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-07-19 18:18 (UTC) Scope: World Peace Pagoda (south entrance) Used in: See Global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-19 19:18 (UTC) Scope: Stirling Castle viewed from the west Used in: en:Stirling Castle  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2017-07-19 19:13 (UTC) Scope: Guy's Tower, Warwick Castle - from the west Used in: en:Warwick Castle  Support Best image of only the tower from this angle; the only real alternative is this one which is not as good.--Peulle (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2017-07-19 20:37 (UTC) Scope: Fasciolaria tulipa (True Tulip), shell  Support There is one serious rival, but this one shows all angles.--Peulle (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Uoaei1 (talk) on 2017-07-19 22:15 (UTC) Scope: Dom zu Maria Saal - Organ  Comment Good, but missing the geocoding in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: Geocode added. Thanks for your hint. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-07-20 03:42 (UTC) Scope: Category:Gold-Haus  Comment Good, but missing caption in English. This Caption could serve as a scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-20 05:13 (UTC) Scope: Nephele subvaria mounted specimen female dorsal  Support useful. Charles (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-20 05:14 (UTC) Scope: Interior of Chiesa dei Gesuiti (Venice) - Right transept - Ignatius of Loyola's Chappel  Support Useful and used. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 09:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-20 05:17 (UTC) Scope: Left transept of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) - Wall of the bottom of the left transept  Support Useful and used. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 09:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-20 09:07 (UTC) Scope: Baptismal font (11th ctry.) in Perpignan Cathedral. Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-20 09:08 (UTC) Scope: Abraxas grossulariata (Magpie moth) dorsal Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-20 09:10 (UTC) Scope: Carterocephalus silvicola (Northern chequered skipper) male dorsal Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-07-20 09:11 (UTC) Scope: Carterocephalus silvicola (Northern chequered skipper) female ventral Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: El Golli Mohamed (talk) on 2017-07-20 10:27 (UTC) Scope: Merops apiaster (European bee-eater) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: El Golli Mohamed (talk) on 2017-07-20 13:44 (UTC) Scope: Egretta garzetta ( Little egret ) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Halavar (talk) on 2017-07-20 14:38 (UTC) Scope: Mandapa of Satra and Tripitaka in the Royal Palace, Phnom Penh. View from S-W  Support Useful. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 17:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-07-20 15:53 (UTC) Scope: "Pomone à la tunique", bronze statue (1921) by Aristide Maillol, Perpignan. Used in: fr:Aristide Maillol  Comment Adding {{Artwork}} template would be helpful. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 17:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-20 16:20 (UTC) Scope: Nephele subvaria mounted specimen female ventral Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-20 16:21 (UTC) Scope: Chapel Badoer Giustinian or of Saint Jerome in San Francesco della Vigna (Venice) - Altarpiece Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-07-20 16:23 (UTC) Scope: Madonna dei camerlenghi by Tintoretto, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

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

New valued image set nominations

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

Closed valued image set candidates

• Promoted valued image set candidates
• Declined valued image set candidates
• Undecided valued image set candidates