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 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

38,155 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			34,168 (89.6%)
Undecided			1,871 (4.9%)
Declined			2,116 (5.5%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-03-11 18:55 (UTC) Scope: Brisbane Skytower Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ввласенко (talk) on 2020-03-11 09:27 (UTC) Scope: Volunteer guarding the Maidan Used in: Euromaidan  Comment - Is the force this man is a member of named Self-Defense of the Maidan? If so, that's a proper name and needs to be capitalized. Otherwise, the scope should include the name of the force, whatever it is. The scope should also reflect the fact that we're looking at an individual. So for example, if he is a member of a police force, the scope should be something like "Member of Such-and-Such Police Force at the Maidan". Let's discuss this and find the best phrasing for the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) At the time of the photo shooting, the Maidan security was voluntarily. "Self-defense of the Maidan" was created later. Volunteers provided for themselves, and looked diverse - below I put a photo of man in the Papakha, taken at the same time and the same plase. The best wording for both images is "Volunteer guarding the Maidan".-- Ввласенко (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC) That scope would be good for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)  Done -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) on 2020-03-12 05:32 (UTC) Scope: Vidhan Bhavan, Mumbai Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-03-13 14:30 (UTC) Scope: SARS-CoV-2 Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-03-14 06:34 (UTC) Scope: The tower of the Reformierte Kirche in Guarda, Switzerland  Support Good and obviously useful. But I probably would have removed the contrails. -- Spurzem (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)  Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-03-14 08:05 (UTC) Scope: Falco peregrinus eggs ssp. madens, eggs  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2020-03-14 09:08 (UTC) Scope: Anna Ascani Used in: arz:انا اسكانى, fr:Anna Ascani, d:Q16526911  Support - Not that flattering, but best in scope because the other 2 portrait photos on Commons are tiny. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2020-03-14 09:13 (UTC) Scope: Ivo Milazzo Used in: es:Ivo Milazzo, fr:Ivo Milazzo, d:Q970229  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2020-03-14 09:15 (UTC) Scope: Bianca Bagnarelli Used in: en:Bianca Bagnarelli, it:Bianca Bagnarelli, d:Q19362165  Support Used and useful and best in scope up to now. -- Spurzem (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-14 14:26 (UTC) Scope: Papilio andraemon (Bahaman swallowtail) in flight, dorsal side  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-14 14:23 (UTC) Scope: Astrochelys radiata (Radiated tortoise)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-14 14:29 (UTC) Scope: Pyxis arachnoides archnoides (Spider tortoise)  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2020-03-14 17:04 (UTC) Scope: Reformierte Kirche S-charl, Pulpit.  Support Best in scope up to now and obviously useful. -- Spurzem (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rocky Masum (talk) on 2020-03-14 10:38 (UTC) Scope: BGB Jetty Ghat, Teknaf  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-03-14 18:17 (UTC) Scope: Alfa Romeo 8C 2300 from 1932, front and left side, at Nürburgring Oldtimer Grand Prix 1975 Used in: de: Alfa Romeo 8C, de: Targa Florio 1932  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment You could lighten up these old photos. Charles (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-03-14 18:42 (UTC) Scope: Engine of Alfa Romeo 8C 2300 from 1932 with Rootes-type blower, right side, at Nürburgring Oldtimer Grand Prix 1975 Used in: de: Alfa Romeo 8C, en: Alfa Romeo 8C, es: Alfa Romeo 8C, it: Alfa Romeo 8C, pt: Alfa Romeo 8C, ru: Alfa Romeo 8C, uk: Alfa Romeo 8C 2300  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-03-14 19:34 (UTC) Scope: Jimmy Cricket Used in: en:Jimmy Cricket Reason: Not the best we can have, but it's the only one we do have. Until I get to another event featuring him, it's the best in scope. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Per Rodhullandemu. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-15 05:37 (UTC) Scope: Eumorpha phorbas mounted specimen female ventral  Support useful. Charles (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-15 05:42 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Galel - Armand Cambon  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-15 05:44 (UTC) Scope: Tentazioni di S.Antonio (Temptations of St. Anthony) - Pietro Liberi, Ca' Rezzonico - Pinacoteca Egidio Martini  Support Voltmetro 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-03-15 06:02 (UTC) Scope: Ruin of S-charl.  Question What is significant here? Charles (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Answer: making the history of the old mountain village visible.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-15 10:45 (UTC) Scope: Amietophrynus gutturalis (African common toad) swimming  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-15 10:53 (UTC) Scope: Pelomedusa subrufa (African helmeted turtle) with feet retracted  Support Useful --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-15 11:17 (UTC) Scope: Neosarmatium meinerti (Red-clawed mangrove crab)  Support - Useful and good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-03-15 17:24 (UTC) Scope: Falco biarmicus ssp. erlangeri (Laner falcon) eggs  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2020-03-15 17:34 (UTC) Scope: S-charl Wild Feeding place.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-16 06:07 (UTC) Scope: Manduca reducta mounted specimen, male dorsal  Support Charles (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-16 06:09 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Tête d'ange - Eugène Amaury-Duval (Angel's head)  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-16 06:10 (UTC) Scope: Vulcano - Carlo Loth, Ca' Rezzonico - Pinacoteca Egidio Martini  Support best in scope --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-03-16 06:28 (UTC) Scope: Wooden stairs in the mountain road through the Val Trupchun to Alp Purcher.  Support - Seems like a useful scope to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment Are you really convinced Ikan Kekek that this is valuable image? Charles (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - No, but I could imagine the image being used in an article to illustrate its scope, so therefore, I am supporting it. Feel free to oppose if you disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-03-16 07:54 (UTC) Scope: Falco sparverius (American kestrel) eggs  Support best in scope --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2020-03-16 08:32 (UTC) Scope: Queen Emma Bridge: daylight view of Otrobanda from E Used in: en:Otrobanda, en:Queen Emma Bridge  Support best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-16 12:43 (UTC) Scope: Phacochoerus africanus sundevallii (Common warthog) female, from the front Good but there is a special category for sundevallii...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Done thanks, error corrected. Charles (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-16 12:31 (UTC) Scope: Myrmecocichla formicivora (Ant-eating chat) female, side view Reason: for this bird, chest view would be another scope -- Charles (talk)  Support best in scope. But a difficult choice with so many photos of the same bird.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rocky Masum (talk) on 2020-03-16 16:07 (UTC) Scope: Bogurar doi (A type of yogurt)  Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-03-16 17:35 (UTC) Scope: Hof Uina Dadora  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-17 06:03 (UTC) Scope: Manduca reducta mounted specimen, male ventral  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-17 06:05 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Paysanne à l'enfant, 1910 - Bronze - Antoine Bourdelle (Peasant girl with child)  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-17 06:08 (UTC) Scope: Venere appare ad Enea ed Acate (Venus appears to Aeneas and Acates) - Antonio Balestra, Ca' Rezzonico - Pinacoteca Egidio Martini  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2020-03-17 08:14 (UTC) Scope: View on S-charl We are looking east  Best in Scope--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2020-03-17 12:58 (UTC) Scope: Insect hotel, Lost Gardens of Heligan, England Reason: This is a working insect hotel, erected primarily to assist "pollinator" insects to breed, not for show. -- Martinvl (talk) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-03-17 13:07 (UTC) Scope: Falco naumanni (lesser kestrel) eggs  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-17 14:09 (UTC) Scope: Sympetrum fonscolombii (Red-veined darter) mating in flight  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-17 13:09 (UTC) Scope: Chamaeleo dilepis (Flap-necked chameleon) juvenile female, ventral side  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-17 14:03 (UTC) Scope: Vanellus lugubris (Senegal lapwing) showing back feathers Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-03-17 17:32 (UTC) Scope: Chapel at Sesvennahütte.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-03-18 02:40 (UTC) Scope: Skyline of Spokane, Washington  Comment Poor resolution, wrong colors, this image Spokane skyline panorama (Aug 2019).jpg is better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-03-18 03:03 (UTC) Scope: Skyline of Providence, Rhode Island  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-18 05:24 (UTC) Scope: Manduca reducta mounted specimen, female dorsal  Support BEst in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-18 05:24 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Nymphe endormie - Armand Cambon - (Sleeping nymph) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-03-18 05:29 (UTC) Scope: Madonna col Bambino (Madonna and Child) - Mattia Bortoloni, Ca' Rezzonico - Pinacoteca Egidio Martini  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2020-03-18 06:12 (UTC) Scope: Monacha claustralis, shell  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-03-18 07:20 (UTC) Scope: Reformierte Kirche Lavin. Detail wooden door (main entrance).  Question why is the valuable? Is it a special design or by a known maker? It looks modern. If it is a valuable design, then the maker should be mentioned and the location is not impertant. Charles (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-03-18 08:29 (UTC) Scope: Falco subbuteo eggs (Eurasian hobby) eggs Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Fire-breasted flowerpecker

View promotion Nominated by: Nirmal Dulal (talk) on 2019-07-29 06:09 (UTC) Scope: Dicaeum ignipectus (Fire-breasted flowerpecker)  Support useful. What is Campaign:wlbirds please Nirmal Dulal? Charles (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Hi Charles this photo is from Wiki Loves Birds. :) --Nirmal Dulal (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)  Comment What a brilliant project Nirmal. I'm coming with my wife and cameras to Nepal 9-22 November this year. I will mail you! Charles (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Sure, I'll be happy to see you here brother. Regards - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)  Oppose - Not as good as the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC) - I was uncomfortable with some of the arguments, so I did a web search. Gray feathers seem to be a minority variant, but I do believe this photo is oversaturated, and the background is surely more distracting than the other photo. If we get a better photo with blue feathers, we can have a Most Valuable Review. For now, I'm going back to opposing this photo and supporting the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)  Support The upperside of the birds is metallic blue --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Support Altogether more vibrant an image, with a more interesting background. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment A "more interesting background" is a negative for VI, not a positive. Charles (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment That's your opinion. Mine differs. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC) I agree with him. Hear me out: The point of a VI is to represent a scope as clearly as possible. A distracting background decreases the clarity of the depiction of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) I agree with the principle, but the point here is that I am not distracted by the background. Should all backgrounds be bland? I doubt it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Not if they're integral to the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg: +3<-- 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg: +1 => 1. File:Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg : Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- 2. File: Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg :promoted Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-11-28 13:42 (UTC) Scope: Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus (Fire-breasted flowerpecker) male  Support - No contest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC) - Vote crossed out because I don't know what the colors should look like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment the colours of the existing FP are oversaturated Ikan Kekek Charles (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - Gotcha, but I lack the knowledge to judge that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - Support reinstated for this gray-backed variant per my remarks on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg: +3 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg: +1<-- => 1. File:Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg : promoted 2. File: Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg :Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Beijing National Aquatics Centre (icerink)

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Arne (talk) on 2019-12-22 18:49 (UTC) Scope: Interior of Beijing National Aquatics Centre (icerink)  Comment - Malformed scopes for both files: "Category" shouldn't be visible in any VI scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)  Comment - fixed --Arne (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Arne (talk) on 2019-12-22 18:49 (UTC) Scope: Interior of Beijing National Aquatics Centre (icerink)  Support better Charles (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Chaumières au printemps, Henri Martin

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-02-28 11:38 (UTC) Scope: Chaumières au printemps, Henri Martin Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-12-27 10:20 (UTC) Scope: Paintings in the musée d'Unterlinden : Henri Martin, Chaumières au printemps (1910)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Annunciation by Martin Schongauer

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-02-28 11:40 (UTC) Scope: Annunciation by Martin Schongauer  Comment - To choose between these, I'd have to know which photo has truer color. Could someone who knows this work well please comment? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-06-26 12:20 (UTC) Scope: Orlier Altarpiece, Dominican Church, Colmar, France.  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Retable de Bergheim

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-02-28 11:39 (UTC) Scope: Retable de Bergheim  Support - Sides open further, clearer depiction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-12-27 17:30 (UTC) Scope: Retable de Bergheim : Veit Wagner, Retable de Bergheim (~1515)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)  Oppose - Depiction not as clear, per my comments on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The Chariot of Death

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-02-28 11:39 (UTC) Scope: The Chariot of Death  Support - Lacks glare, so seems better. I hope it's not too dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-01-01 11:12 (UTC) Scope: The Chariot of Death : Théophile Schuler, Le char de la mort (1848)  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  Oppose for glare. See comment on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Coenobita clypeatus

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Domob (talk) on 2019-12-08 11:33 (UTC) Scope: Coenobita clypeatus (Caribbean hermit crab) Reason: Good and high resolution image, could replace the existing main picture -- Domob (talk)  Oppose - Better quality but not as useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Domob (talk) on 2019-12-08 11:36 (UTC) Scope: Coenobita clypeatus (Caribbean hermit crab) Reason: Currently the mainly used image for Coenobita clypeatus -- Domob (talk)  Comment I think this one has lower overall quality. --Domob (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)  Support more valuable. Charles (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)  Support per Charles. More valuable because it shows more of the crab's body. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

pied barbet

Review Page (edit) Nominated by:  B.p. on 2013-02-16 16:25 (UTC) Scope: Tricholaema leucomelas (Pied barbet) Reason: Only photograph on Commons --  B.p.  Support VI. --JLPC (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Godot13 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2020-03-16 12:32 (UTC) Scope: Tricholaema leucomelas centralis (Acacia pied barbet)  Comment There is a problem with Tricholaema leucomelas.jpg both images show the same subspecies. The first image is already VI. You have to go through Pending Most valued review candidates. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Done thanks. Didn't show on my PC. Charles (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Open for review.

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

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

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

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

Pending valued image set candidates

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