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

22,337 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			19,496 (87.3%)
Undecided			1,206 (5.4%)
Declined			1,635 (7.3%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Mathieu MD (talk) on 2016-08-15 09:15 (UTC) Scope: Nymphaea alba (White Water-lily), Flower Decent picture, but very rich scope, and many other potential valuable competitors. I guess the vote will be difficult, and based on many personal (and too subjective, I'm afraid) arguments.--Jebulon (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Okay, but there are no VI yet in this scope. Shall we start an MVR? With which candidates? --Mathieu MD (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Grtek (talk) on 2016-08-15 15:47 (UTC) Scope: Djigit Peak, north face  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)  Support Useful. --Pierre André (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Grtek (talk) on 2016-08-15 15:51 (UTC) Scope: Views on Terskey Alatau from Issyk-Kul lakeshore Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-15 15:58 (UTC) Scope: Traction engine, Établissements Merlin & Cie. (1927)  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)  Support useful --Pierre André (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-15 18:34 (UTC) Scope: Chicoreus torrefactus (Firebrand Murex), Shell  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)  Support usefull The gallery is very beautiful. --Pierre André (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-16 05:29 (UTC) Scope: Xylophanes cyrene mounted specimen female ventral  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-16 05:33 (UTC) Scope: Verfeil (Haute-Garonne) - Church Saint Blaise the high altar.  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-16 05:36 (UTC) Scope: Ponte Molin de la Racheta in Venice - SE exposure  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2016-08-16 06:54 (UTC) Scope: Vélodyssée cyclable in the pinewoods in the Landes, France  Comment Photo is taken against the light, everything is in shade and not much visible. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the comment. The light comes from the left. Not everything is in shadow but it shows exactly the atmosphere of a bikeride under the pines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-16 07:52 (UTC) Scope: Waterloo Boy Model R (1917)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Mathieu MD (talk) on 2016-08-16 12:29 (UTC) Scope: Abbaye Saint-Pierre de Marcilhac-sur-Célé, panorama of the ruins Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Mathieu MD (talk) on 2016-08-16 13:02 (UTC) Scope: The Devil on the Pont Valentré  Info The photo quality has been improved a bit (CA and contrast) --Mathieu MD (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-16 16:37 (UTC) Scope: Case 12/25 (1916)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jebulon (talk) on 2016-08-16 16:57 (UTC) Scope: Aristotelis Valaoritis, bust in National Garden, Athens, Greece. Used in: el:Αριστοτέλης Βαλαωρίτης Reason: @Grtek: no problem with FoP in Greece, the author of this bust, Fokion Rok, died in 1945. Best in scope IMO, for this bust of this greek poet. We have two versions, this one is better IMO. Geocoded and in use (maybe my first contribution to the greek wikipedia !!) -- Jebulon (talk)  Support best in scope. Do you know the year in which the bust was created or another metainfo about bust? If yes, it could be in description. If no, never mind. --Grtek (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Do you read Greek, Grtek ? If yes: http://www.athenssculptures.com/2014/05/aristotle-valaoritis.html .If no, never mind 😜.--Jebulon (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)  Comment Not at all, but Uncle Google does...--Grtek (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-16 21:16 (UTC) Scope: 30 Letnia Street in Srebrna Góra, exposure from S  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)  Comment Can you show a link to an official government website please which lists all these buildings as official monuments. Thanks. Charles (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)  Oppose temporary oppose till my question is answered. thanks. Charles (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-16 21:22 (UTC) Scope: Railway viaduct in Srebrna Góra, exposure from S  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-16 21:25 (UTC) Scope: Railway viaduct in Srebrna Góra, exposure from W  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-16 21:29 (UTC) Scope: Góry Bardzkie, Łysa Góra and Ostróg  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-17 05:57 (UTC) Scope: Eumorpha obliquus mounted specimen, female, ventral  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-17 05:59 (UTC) Scope: Melitaea athalia mounted specimen male dorsal  Support best in scope, useful, and beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-17 06:01 (UTC) Scope: Saint-Marcel-Paulel, Haute-Garonne, France. View from Verfeil.  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-17 06:08 (UTC) Scope: Cappella dei milanesi - Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari - The tomb of Claudio Monteverdi  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2016-08-17 06:33 (UTC) Scope: U-Bahnhof Candidplatz: exit Reason: best (and so far only) image in scope -- Martin Falbisoner (talk)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: --Pierre André (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC) on 2016-08-17 10:56 (UTC) Scope: Dovecotes in Pas-de-Calais "Grand'Maison" in hamelet of "Haute-Escalles" South West face. Used in: Global usage  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. If it were used it would be a determining factor. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)  Done thank you.--Pierre André (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-17 11:35 (UTC) Scope: Fibigia clypeata (Roman Shields), Fruits with seeds  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-17 15:48 (UTC) Scope: Minneapolis 17-30 A (1922)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-08-17 16:11 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1838) in Mannebach (near Saarburg), Germany  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-17 20:40 (UTC) Scope: The fountain in the Kenilworth Castle Elizabethan knot gardens - from the east  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-17 20:40 (UTC) Scope: The fountain in the Kenilworth Castle Elizabethan knot gardens - from the south  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-17 22:22 (UTC) Scope: Srebrna Góra Fortress, exposure from S  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-17 22:32 (UTC) Scope: Shooting stands in Poland, in Stara Morawa  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-17 22:36 (UTC) Scope: Strachocin, forest headquarter, exposure from SW  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)  Oppose Can you explain why this is a notable building please. Charles (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-08-17 22:39 (UTC) Scope: Cierniak, exposure from S  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2016-08-18 05:14 (UTC) Scope: Fuchsia 'Aloys Hetterscheid' Flower buds.  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-18 05:20 (UTC) Scope: Marumba amboinicus mounted specimen male dorsal  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-18 05:23 (UTC) Scope: Xylophanes cosmius mounted specimen male ventral  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-18 05:27 (UTC) Scope: Verfeil (Haute-Garonne) - Facade of a house of the sixteenth century called "Maison du Lieutenant de Juge"  Support, best in scope. The tilt needs a civil engineer not an image editor! ;) DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-18 05:32 (UTC) Scope: Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venezia - Upper part of interior facade  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-18 10:18 (UTC) Scope: Caulophyllum thalictroides (Blue cohosh), habitus  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-08-18 17:21 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross near Mannebach (near Saarburg), Germany.  Support best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-18 18:08 (UTC) Scope: MWM Motorpferd (1925)  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-18 18:13 (UTC) Scope: Natica fulminea forma cruentata (Lightning Moon Snail), Shell  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-18 20:07 (UTC) Scope: The remains of St Edmund's Memorial Chapel, Old Hunstanton - from the south Used in: en:Hunstanton  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-18 20:36 (UTC) Scope: Citroën HY food van - front Used in: en:Food truck  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-18 20:46 (UTC) Scope: Castle Rising Castle - from the south-east  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC) shouldn't scope say 'keep'? This isn't the whole castle. Charles (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2016-08-18 22:29 (UTC) Scope: Bust to Juan Fugl in church of Denmark, Tandil, Argentina  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-19 04:44 (UTC) Scope: Marumba amboinicus mounde specimen male ventral  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-19 04:46 (UTC) Scope: Xylophanes ceratomioides mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-19 04:47 (UTC) Scope: Verfeil (Haute-Garonne) - Church Saint Blaise, facade on Promedande Jean Jaurès  Support usefull, and good quality of the photo Olivier LPB (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-19 04:55 (UTC) Scope: Rio de la Racheta (Venice) - North exposure  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Olivier LPB (talk) on 2016-08-19 08:23 (UTC) Scope: Coat of arms of Beaumont-Village Used in: Beaumont-Villagein fr and all the other languages  Question Definitelly useful, but has it appropriate license? Did you really design that coat of arms for that commune?--Grtek (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)  answer the licence is good, beacause all of the elements in the coat of arms are un free licence (me and others authors). The original coat of arms has been drawn by an other author, the composition in heraldics laws and right can't be in copyright, all the drawers can have their own vision of the coat of arms. Do you understand me ? Olivier LPB (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)  Support Thanks for answer.--Grtek (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)  Support Viewing the change in the scope. It is useful to connect the scope to the category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-19 10:15 (UTC) Scope: Caulophyllum thalictroides (Blue cohosh), fruits  Support Usefull Olivier LPB (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-08-19 11:48 (UTC) Scope: Maniola jurtina (Meadow brown butterfly) female, dorsal Reason: best of lots of images -- Charles (talk)  Support I thinks so. But why not put it in the gallery and why not by replacing low-value image by it? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Do you have a quick way of adding my images to Commons galleries as well as category gallery? Charles (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-08-19 11:54 (UTC) Scope: Volucella pellucens (Pellucid fly) female, dorsal  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-08-19 11:57 (UTC) Scope: Gerris lacustris (Pond skaters) colony  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-19 13:56 (UTC) Scope: Renault PE (1928)  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2016-08-19 14:40 (UTC) Scope: Valentina De Poli Used in: de:Valentina De Poli, en:Valentina De Poli it:Valentina De Poli  Best in Scope --Mathieu MD (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-08-19 15:27 (UTC) Scope: Saint Anne Church in Mannebach, Germany.  Comment, I think the scope should include the view direction. DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)  Comment Indeed, both the scope and the description/{{Object location}} should include orientation/heading. --Mathieu MD (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-08-19 17:18 (UTC) Scope: Theba gittenbergeri, shell, brown form  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Masum-al-hasan Rocky (talk) on 2016-08-19 18:12 (UTC) Scope: Kantaji Temple in 1870's  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) on 2016-08-19 17:00 (UTC) Scope: Bahá'í Houses of Worship, the Lotus Temple is open to all, regardless of religion.. Reason: The Lotus Temple, located in New Delhi, India, is a Bahá'í House of Worship completed in 1986. -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk)  Comment The scope does not point in the right category. The scope should not contain comment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-19 19:12 (UTC) Scope: Jaguar E-Type series 2 coupé - front Used in: en:Jaguar E-Type  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-19 19:26 (UTC) Scope: Napier Type 75 TT - front Used in: en:Napier & Son  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-19 20:14 (UTC) Scope: Tragelaphus strepsiceros (Greater kudu) bull in the Kruger National Park.  Comment This is the best picture but the scope is not formatted properly. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english vernacular name in parenthesis. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Scope changed from Kudu bull in the Kruger National Park to Tragelaphus strepsiceros (Greater kudu) bull in the Kruger National Park. --Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2016 (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". @Archaeodontosaurus: Scope changed. Martinvl (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)  Oppose I don't think we should have VI in this scope. Otherwise we will have scopes of animals in every national park in every country (not to mention zoos). Adds no value. Charles (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-20 04:58 (UTC) Scope: Xylophanes ceratomioides mounted specimen male ventral  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-20 05:01 (UTC) Scope: Ambulyx japonica angustifasciata mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-20 05:04 (UTC) Scope: Church Saint-Sernin-des-Rais, Verfeil, France - Bell gable  Comment I think the scope should include the orientation, as there is another image showing that the bells can be seen from the opposite side. Moreover, the bells are not really seen on this image; isn't a scope about the bells wall better? --Mathieu MD (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-20 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Basilica of Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari - Venice - Monument to Alvise Pasqualigo  Comment The inscription reads Aloisius. Is this the same person? Charles (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC) 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.

Silicon sphere from the Avogadro Project

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-13 12:01 (UTC) Scope: Silicon sphere used in the Avogadro Project Used in: Multiple articles (see list on image page) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-13 12:05 (UTC) Scope: Silicon sphere from the Avogadro Project  Support A good image, showing both the sphere and some precision machine, proving it's not just any sphere. Otherwise, to me it looks like a pétanque ball... ;-) (It's not geo localized, though.) --Mathieu MD (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)  Comment Geolocation added. (to nearest 100 metres!) Martinvl (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)  Question Who is the man in the picture. What is its role in the project. If this is the project leader image would have much more interest. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)  Info. @Archaeodontosaurus: He is the master optician. I have added that information to the image description. Martinvl (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-13 12:07 (UTC) Scope: Silicon sphere from the Avogadro Project  Support I don't know nothing about the subject, but if the scope is "sphere", here we have a sphere, and nothing distracting else. Other pictures show a sphere, and... something and somebody.--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)  Comment But this one is labeled to be "similar to those used in the Avogadro project", which, as I understand it, means that it's not a Silicon sphere from the Avogadro Project... (I don't know anything about this project either, though) --Mathieu MD (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Open for review.

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