Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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
57,607 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 51,878 (90.1%) 
Undecided
  
 3,200 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,529 (4.4%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (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]
 Comment @Skot: On the two separate scans by you as image uploader - I would suggest adding this information on the info pages of both image. A suggestion for next time - upload the improved second scan image as a new version under File History, citing the improvements made. Both images will be retained but only the latest, better image will display on search (less confusing). Given both images uploaded separately, you could ask an Admin with mover rights to do this for you.
As for the scope, you have 3 images at three distinct points in this poet's life. IMHO, if you are claiming that this is the best image ever of this poet (and therefore, most valuable), that seems a little too wide. I am not a big fan of limiting sub-scopes but I am not sure the 3 images are directly comparable. My initial thought was that a scope of "Frantisek Halas - portrait at age 44" or "Frantisek Halas - in his forties" woukd resolve this issue but I open to your thoughts (and others) on this. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-11 02:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Madonna and Child with two Angels by Sassetta - Metropolitan Museum of Art version
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-12 07:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Flag of Maryland
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-12 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Lanius excubitor elegans (museum specimens) (great grey shrike (elegans)) eggs
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-12 08:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Antiochus et Stratonice (Jacques-Louis David)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-12 09:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Korytnia, Uman Raion
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-12 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Menhir de Menozac'h, view from Énez Terc'h
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
geocoded and used in articles -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-12 14:38 (UTC)
Scope:
22 Taras Shevchenko Street, Pidhaitsi, view from S.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-01-12 17:42 (UTC)
Scope:
flower of a Plumbago auriculata (flowers)

 Comment In this case I would not say inflorescence but flower (as only one flower of the inflorescence is visible). --Llez (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-12 19:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint George church, Stare Misto, view from N.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-13 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Macomangulus tenuis (Thin Tellin), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-13 08:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Korytnia, Uman Raion
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-13 13:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Nederlandsche vogelen van Nozeman en Sepp - Bombycilla garrulus

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-01-13 16:57 (UTC)
Scope:
BMW G70 M760e xDrive - left front view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-13 18:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Grottes de Kersiguérou-Kerloc'h, view from Kerloc'h beach
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
-->Quality images link=Commons:Quality images, geocoded and used in articles. -- Pierre André (talk)

 Support Useful and used. --Rbrechko (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-13 18:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Saints Cosmas and Damian church, Vyshnia, view from W.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-13 18:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloris chloris eggs (European greenfinch (aurantiiventris)) eggs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mounir Neddi (talk) on 2025-01-13 19:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Moussem Moulay Abdellah Amghar
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-14 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Macomangulus tenuis (Thin Tellin), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-14 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Well in Campo San Boldo (Venice)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-14 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Tetragnatha extensa dosal view on Philadelphus coronarius
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-14 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Maurice Utrillo sur un divan (Maurice Utrillo on a couch) by Suzanne Valadon
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-14 07:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Paraskevi Church in Tymoshivka - view from SE

 Comment Please add geo location and english description. Thanks. --Rbrechko (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Thanks —Nikride (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Useful & used. --Rbrechko (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-14 11:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthus pratensis in Nederlandsche vogelen van Nozeman en Sepp
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-14 14:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Lanius collurio in Nederlandsche vogelen van Nozeman en Sepp
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-14 16:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Paraskeva church, Kuriany, Ternopil Oblast, view from W.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mounir Neddi (talk) on 2025-01-14 19:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Horses in Moussem Moulay Abdellah Amghar
Open for review.
Commons:Valued image candidates/Mausoleum Moulay Abdallah Amghar Moulay Abdallah commune 29.jpg

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-15 05:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Macomangulus tenuis var. aurantia (Thin Tellin), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gpkp (talk) on 2025-01-15 05:51 (UTC)
Scope:
A Great Egret bird displaying its breeding plumage (Cape May County, New Jersy, US)
✓ Done Connected. --Gpkp (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-15 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Autoportrait au miroir - Suzanne Valadon
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-15 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Eugene of Savoy - Pietro Longhi, Ca' Rezzonico (Venice)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-15 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Megamphicyon giganteus Canine
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-15 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Potash Railway Station - view from S

 Support Useful and used. --Rbrechko (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-01-15 08:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Delichon urbicum eggs (western house martin (meridionale)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-15 20:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Nicholas church, Nahoriany, Ternopil Oblast (OCU), view from NW.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-01-15 23:20 (UTC)
Scope:
The Red Vineyard
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-16 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Domenico Pizzamano - Alessandro Longhi

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-16 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Phalangium opilio female on Buxus sempervirens
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-01-16 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Self-portrait - Suzanne Valadon (1893)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-16 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Macomangulus tenuis var. aurantia (Thin Tellin), left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-01-16 08:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Odaipil
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-01-16 10:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Aile droite de la la ferme templiers (Verlinghem), view from rue de Pérenchies
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
Monuments historiques, geocoded and used in articles -- Pierre André (talk)

 Support Best in scope. --Rbrechko (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-16 17:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Simeon Stylites church, Kotsuriv, view from NE.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rbrechko (talk) on 2025-01-16 17:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Bell tower of Simeon Stylites church, Kotsuriv, view from NE.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-01-17 05:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Macomangulus tenuis var. flavescens (Thin Tellin), right valve
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 05:54, 15 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 05:54, 15 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 05:54, 15 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. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

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

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

Pending valued image set candidates

[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=982263746"