Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from VIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

How to nominate an image for VI status

[edit]

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination.

Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)

[edit]

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this: 

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.

Renomination

[edit]

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in 

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with 

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued Review

[edit]

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: 

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidates

[edit]

How to review an image

[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure

[edit]
  • On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
 You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
 You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  •  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
 You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period

[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

[edit]
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
57,546 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 51,820 (90%) 
Undecided
  
 3,197 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,529 (4.4%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-05 06:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of Phạm Hùng (1912 - 1988) in the Chuong Thien Victory Relic Site
  •  Comment There are several problems: It must be said that it is a bust in the scope. It would be necessary to have the name of the author of this sculpture. It is necessary to be sure that this work is not under copyright. It would be useful to have a caption in English in the description of the image. A geocoding is necessary in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • *  Comment We're almost there. I translated the image caption into English. You have to give the geocodge of the Chuong Thien Victory Relic Site in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-05 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Dibrivka (Uman Raion)

 Support Useful & used. --Rbrechko (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-05 10:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Emberiza striolata (museum specimens) (striolated bunting) eggs
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-05 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Phoenicurus ochruros gibraltariensis (Black redstart) female
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-05 12:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Sciurus vulgaris fuscoater (Red squirrel) black variant, eating acorn
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-05 13:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Catholic church in Ustechko, view from SE.
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Tiouraren (talk) on 2025-01-05 15:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Taichung Mosque - façade
Reason:
The highest-quality image (on Commons) of the mosque after its renovation. -- Tiouraren (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-01-05 18:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Reformierte Kirche Lavin West side.

 Support Best in scope. --Rbrechko (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-06 05:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Spisula elliptica (Elliptical Surf Clam), left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-06 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Mocenigo a San Stae (Venice) Portego Entrance of the portego
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-06 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Women in the bathroom - Suzanne Valadon
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-06 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Sea port with boat and fishermen by Antonio Travi PINACOTHÈQUE EGIDIO MARTINI
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-06 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Dibrivka (Uman Raion)

 Comment This file (a geocoding is necessary in the caption), seems better to me File:Зарубинці (Монастирищенський р-н). Пам'ятник воїнам-односельцям.jpg, for me is better.--Pierre André (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-06 08:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Muscicapa griseisticta (museum specimens) (grey-streaked flycatcher) eggs
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Skot (talk) on 2025-01-06 18:17 (UTC)
Scope:
František Halas

 Comment There are at least 3 portrait images at different ages in your scope-link. I am not sure that you can make the claim that this is the best one of the three. Suggest adding a qualifying sub-scope, such as "František Halas - portrait at age 44".
Also, this image appears to be a cleaned up, better version of "František Halas by Jaromír Funke.jpg". Suggest adding a derivative statement on the description page of this image, referencing back to the original. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Thank you for your comment. In my opinion one of the images cannot simply be described as original and the other as derivative, both images are derived from a scanned magazine and processed differently.
This is my first nomination here, so I am not fully familiar with all the nuances, but do I understand your recommendation that it is good practice to specify scopes when nominating valuable images at such a level of detail as "Frantisek Halas - portrait at age 44", "Frantisek Halas - portrait at age 22" "Frantisek Halas - portrait at age 39"? --Skot (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-06 22:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Trademark S.G.M. of La Ferté-sous-Jouarre.- ARAM (Villeneuve d'Ascq), view from Rue Albert Samain
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-07 02:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Charles I of England by Anthony van Dyck

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-07 05:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Atactodea striata, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-07 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Doge Paolo Renier by Lodovico Gallina, Museo Correr in Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-07 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Male specimen of Bubo scandiacus (Linnaeus, 1758)

 Comment Please check the link to the scope (should be "Category: Bubo scandiacus (museum specimens)", and add "male" because of sexual dimorphism. --Llez (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-07 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Perseus Frees Andromeda by Francesco Maffei
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-07 13:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Arundinax aedon (museum specimens) (thick-billed warbler) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-07 15:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Nicholas church, Nahoriany, Ternopil Oblast (UGCC), view from W.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-07 15:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Resurrection of Christ, Sadky, Chortkiv Raion, view from W.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2025-01-07 17:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Frankfurt am Main (90 km) and Vogelsberg (146 km) seen from Eckkopfturm
Used in:
de:Eckkopfturm
Reason:
This clear long-distance view occurs only very rarely. -- Milseburg (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2025-01-07 17:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Belchen (179 km) and Blauen (185 km) in the southern Black Forrest seen from Eckkopfturm
Used in:
de:Eckkopfturm
Reason:
Maximum visibility from the location. This clear view is very rare. -- Milseburg (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-01-07 18:18 (UTC)
Scope:
The Four Evangelists Reformierte Kirche Lavin (Evangelists)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-07 22:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Madeleine pénitente aux pieds de Jésus chez le Pharisien , by Andries Cornelis Lens with frame , Église Sainte-Marie-Madeleine de Lille
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-08 01:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Alexander the Great (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek IN574)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-08 06:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Atactodea striata, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-08 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Mocenigo a San Stae (Venice) Portego - Portrait of Giovanni Tommaso Mocenigo
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-08 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
La salle de bain (athroom) by Suzanne Valadon
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-08 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Duel between knights by Giovanni Antonio Guardi
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-08 08:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Cinnyris chloropygius (olive-bellied sunbird) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-08 09:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Ziubrykha

 Support Useful and used. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-08 11:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Skull with a burning cigarette by Vincent Van Gogh
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-08 11:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Exaltation of the Holy Cross church, Semyhyniv, view from N.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2025-01-08 17:49 (UTC)
Scope:
M/F Dragsvik - IMO 9871270
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-08 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Madeleine convertie écoutant notre seigneur chez Marthe , by Andries Cornelis Lens with frame, Église Sainte-Marie-Madeleine de Lille
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-08 22:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Madeleine consolée par la vue de Notre Seigneur après sa résurrection , by Andries Cornelis Lens with frame, Église Sainte-Marie-Madeleine de Lille

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-08 22:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Photomontage of Iconographie des quatre scènes de la vie de sainte Marie-Madeleine by Andries Cornelis, Lens, Église Sainte-Marie-Madeleine de Lille
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-09 05:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Donacilla cornea var. biradiata, right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-09 06:02 (UTC)
Scope:
18th-century portrait paintings in the Museo del Settecento Veneziano - Portrait of Bartolomeo Cornet by Maria Molin
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-09 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Chersonesometrus fulvipes - dorsal view - Specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-09 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Photographie de Suzanne Valadon et de son fils Maurice Utrillo
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-09 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
World War II memorial in Kniazhyky, Uman Raion
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-09 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Taeniopygia guttata (museum specimens) (Sunda zebra finch ssp. castanotis) eggs

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) , on 2025-01-09 11:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Painting of Resurrection of Lazarus by Jacob van Oost le Jeune, Église Sainte-Marie-Madeleine de Lille
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-09 15:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Green wheat field with cypress by Vincent van Gogh, 1889
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-09 16:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Presentation of Virgin Mary, Dorohychivka (OCU), view from W.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mounir Neddi (talk) on 2025-01-09 19:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Falco peregrinus in Morocco
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-10 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Donacilla cornea var. biradiata, left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-10 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Donà delle rose seen from the Rio dei Gesuiti
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-10 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Les baigneuses - Suzanne Valadon
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-10 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Perseus and Medusa by Francesco Maffei
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-10 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Zenaida aurita (Zenaida dove) eggs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-10 08:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Mass grave of Soviet soldiers in Kniazha Krynytsia, Uman Raion
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]

Jujubinus errinae

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2020-04-26 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Jujubinus errinae, shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
NotAGenious (talk) on 2024-12-26 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Jujubinus errinae

 Question Is the original license of this image (a scientific paper) compatible with the Wikimedia license (commercial use)? --Llez (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

hamster

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2011-12-10 22:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster)

 Support Excellent. All criteria met.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)  Support Seems to be the best one Kersti (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-04 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European hamster)
Reason:
replacing image of museum specimen -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
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

[edit]
   
Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=907565339"