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
53,213 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 47,793 (89.8%) 
Undecided
  
 2,964 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,456 (4.6%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-07 11:22 (UTC)
Scope:
De Geboorte van de Maagd Maria (The Birth of the Virgin Mary) by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen
  •  Comment The convention on VIC is to give the name of the painting in the language of the painter - in this case, Dutch - with English in parentheses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 11:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Best in scope and useful. This is a retouched version of the original photo from the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes. It appears to be identical to the original except for fixing a couple of blemishes. I've capitalised the painting name in the scope -- please revert if inappropriate. --Tagooty (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-04 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Stormvogel (ship, 1980), front and starboard view. Antoing (Be)

 Question Do we consider starboard-view as a specified version? At least a better front view is this one.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexander-93: This is a proposal to have a starboard view of the geolocated Stormvogel (ship, 1980), in Antoing. Best regards--Pierre André (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-04 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Maxus T90 EV - right front view
Used in:
de:Maxus (Automarke)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-04 14:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Subaru Solterra ST-E - right front view
Used in:
de:Subaru Solterra
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-04 20:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Grandland GSe - left rear view
Used in:
de:Opel Grandland
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-05 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Mustang Mach-E Rally - right front view
Used in:
de:Ford Mustang Mach-E
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-05 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Tourneo Courier (2nd generation) - right front view
Used in:
de:Ford, de:Hochdachkombi, de:Ford-Werke, de:Ford Transit Courier
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexis Lours (talk) on 2023-11-05 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Hydrobates leucorhous (Leach's storm-petrel)
I was hesitant to connect to the current category because the scientific name is outdated on Commons for all species of this genus, should I change the scope to the old scientific name, Oceanodroma leucorhoa even though it isn't valid anymore? Alexis Lours (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  SupportProblem solved for VI but if you have time you can update this synonymy on Commons ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you! I'll see if I can get around to doing that this week, the entire genus need to be changed a quite a few categories renamed with it. Alexis Lours (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-06 20:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Mustang Mach-E Rally - left rear view
Used in:
de:Ford Mustang Mach-E, fr:Ford Mustang Mach-E

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 08:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-07 06:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Gafrarium dispar, left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-07 08:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia conspicillata (museum specimens) (spectacled warbler (orbitalis)) eggs
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2023-11-07 15:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Appennino by Giambologna
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2023-11-07 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Croce (Florence) - Facade
Reason:
This is a close call for best in scope. The alternative is File:Basílica de la Santa Cruz, Florencia, Italia, 2022-09-18, DD 95.jpg. Nominating this one because I prefer the light, perspective, and wider framing. -- — Rhododendrites talk | 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2023-11-07 16:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Cappella dei Principi, statue and sarcophagus of Cosimo II

 Info The link points to non-existent category. --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@LexKurochkin: Just left out the template. Fixed. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-07 18:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Peugeot Inception Concept - right rear view
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-07 19:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia cantillans (museum specimens) (eastern subalpine warbler (inornata)) eggs

 Comment I think the scope should be: Sylvia cantillans inornata (eastern subalpine warbler), eggs, museum specimens --Llez (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reality, with this type (genus), there is no good solution: the nomenclature used in commons seems to be changing... and I do not dare to intervene. Thanks. ----Ercé (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-08 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Lottia subrugosa, shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-08 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Francesco Morosini by Vincenzo Maria Coronelli - Museo Correr Venice
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-08 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar frontal from Baltarga - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-08 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Fruit basket, by Antonio Canova, Museo Correr in Venice
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-08 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia cantillans (museum specimens) (eastern subalpine warbler (cantillans)) eggs

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2023-11-08 09:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Santuario Nostra Signora della Salute, Volastra, Cinque Terre - Altar
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-08 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Le Mont d'Hubert, view from Escalles
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Subhrajyoti07 (talk) on 2023-11-08 17:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Big Buddha (Phuket) view from front
Used in:
en:Phuket Big Buddha
Reason:
It is the best in scope image in the given category -- Subhrajyoti07 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-08 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Ferme la Grand Maison (Escalles), view from Rte de Ramsault
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-11-09 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
De Slikwerker Sculptuur van Frans Ram. (Front and side.)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-09 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
The Prophet Isaiah by Paolo Veronese
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-09 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Cornucopia with Stars and Shells by Josep Maria Jujol - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-09 06:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Hall of arms in the Palazzo Ducale with the bust of Francesco Morosini by Alessandro Piazza, Museo Correr in Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-09 06:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Stiracolpus pagoda (Pagoda Turret), shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-09 09:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia undata (museum specimens) (Dartford warbler (undata)) eggs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-09 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Mustang VI Convertible California Special - left front view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-09 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Polestar 2 BST Edition 230 - right front view
Used in:
de:Polestar 2
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-09 20:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia undata (museum specimens) (Dartford warbler (toni)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-10 06:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrocallista nimbosa (Sunray Venus Clam). fossil right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-10 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Multiplo da 4 Zecchini tipo Ducatone (Alvise IV Mocenigo) at the Correr Museum in Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-10 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Armchair in the living room on the main floor of Casa Calvet by Antoni Gaudí - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-10 06:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Il Doge Francesco Morosini condotto all'imbarco by Alessandro Piazza, Museo Correr in Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-10 08:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Curruca deserti (African desert warbler) eggs

 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-10 23:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Poster of Mighty Lak' a Rose (1923 film), restored
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-11 05:34 (UTC)
Scope:
View of Venice by Gian Battista Arzenti - Museo Correr

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-11 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Biga de la Passió (Crist portant la creu) - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-11 05:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Three Representations of Ships (B2) by Willelm van Velde the Elder - Museo Correr

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2023-11-11 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Flower bud of a Agapanthus africanus 'White Heaven'
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-11 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrocallista nimbosa (Sunray Venus Clam). fossil left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-11 07:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia undata (museum specimens) (African desert warbler (dartfordiensis)) eggs

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2023-11-11 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
National Orchid Garden, Singapore - location map
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-11 09:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Cran aux oeufs (Audinghen), Pas-de-Calais
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-11 09:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cran Poulet (Audinghen), Pas-de-Calais
Used in:
Global usage

 Question The scope refers to a spring and a chapel. (Forgive me if I've misunderstood the translation by DeepL.com) I don't see that this image depicts either. --Tagooty (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-11 11:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Cran Barbier (Audinghen), Pas-de-Calais
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-11 11:33 (UTC)
Scope:
JAC Refine M3 EV - right front view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2023-11-12 03:12 (UTC)
Scope:
FS UIC-Z coach in Frecciabianca livery
Used in:
it:Carrozza UIC-Z1 • wikidata:Q123403359
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-12 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Ercole Bambino con il serpente from the Correr Museum

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-12 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
La Mecedora - Pere Torné Esquius- Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-12 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany by François Dumont - Museo Correr Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-12 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Lepeta scaldensis, shell
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-12 07:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia deserticola (museum specimens) (Tristram's warbler) eggs
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

agouti[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-03-24 15:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
  •  Comment
    We already have a VI in this scope and I see at list one more image of comparable quality, and both are used. Should we start MVR for this scope?
  •  Comment Yes it is better to go through MVR. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Black-cowled oriole[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2010-05-08 10:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icterus prosthemelas (Black-cowled Oriole)
Reason:
Only image on Commons and duly geo-referenced. -- Lycaon (talk)

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-12 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas (Black-cowled oriole) showing back feathers

current VIC for image showing chest feathers

  •  Best in Scope, useful and used. Significantly better than the current VI as of 12.04.2023 --[[User:|LexKurhockin]] (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Significantly better than the current VI --Milseburg (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support agree with the others: better picture for this scope. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Charles - suggest scope of this nomination match current VI with excess description "showing back feathers" dropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charles – I did not see reference to another scope with chest species for this bird and you did not provide a link. Either way, it is not germane to the issue here. Requirements for Value Image scopes are defined in COM:VIS and those are the guidelines to that define the validity of VI scopes which are an essential part of the VI rating.
You have a good quality image that is of better quality than the one you are competing against in this MVR and would vote for it if the scopes were the same.
Why have you made your VI scope too narrow with the addition of "showing back feathers” as unnecessary description? If you think it is important detail, it should go in the image description.
Why are you comparing an image you have identified as sub-species to an image with a higher taxonomy level of species?
Per COM:VIS – “If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.” --GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)--GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Charles While being calm is a welcome state of mind, clarity on your VI scope is needed here.
Are you stating that the yellow back feathers in this image support that this bird is of the Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas sub-species as opposed to the I. p. praecox sub-species? Can you really compare it to the other MVR image VI with scope of Icterus prosthemelas species?
IMHO the extra description of feather coloration on chest or back is good information to support a VI nomination as I. p. prosthemelas sub-species (already has a VI), but it should not be part of the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Info I do not see any problem with having rather detailed scopes for birds or any other subject. It is better than too general scope IMO. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Hello LexKurochkin Overly detailed scopes tend to take the form of unique description that makes the image appear more valuable than it really is to Commons and can create multiple VI ratings for images of the same bird. Overly detailed scopes are specifically discouraged per COM:VIS.
“Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.”
There is good reading in COM:VIS on too wide, too narrow (or overly descriptive), and just right scopes.
Further good reading is at COM:VIS Domain-specific scope guidelines for animals (includes birds) where the “General rule is: one scope per species…”. It goes on to allow identifiable sub-species and sub-scopes for identifiable male/female (fledgling, immature etc.) characteristics and specific behavioral aspects (nesting, flying etc.). All of these added sub-scope options are fine and in theory, it may be possible to have a dozen VI ratings for a given bird or animal.
IMHO when more description beyond these guidelines is allowed, the scope becomes too narrow and overly wordy. I have no problem with this extra information on chest and back feathers being presented as a reason to support the VI nomination (one on the non-mandatory fields in the nomination) for identification of this bird as representing a specific species or sub-species scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Violet patched skipper[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-06-16 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose leg and 1 antenna being out of focus is distracting. Lorax (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-23 14:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside

 Support better lighting and better control of depth of field than alternative Lorax (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support per Lorax. More details are visible at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2022-01-09 17:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  •  Best in Scope. Very good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Best in scope to me. Much more details and there aren't CAs on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment At low resolution, this image works best of the three because the entire building is more clearly and more evenly separated from the background.--Cartoffel (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Reason:
Some minor finishing touches were put on the building since I took the current VI back in April 2021. I have two versions here with slightly different lighting. -- —Percival Kestreltail (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  •  Comment This is the best of the three, but there are other candidates, and I am not up to looking through all the alternatives right now and might not be in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-18 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata, male

 Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2013-10-22 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-05-20 08:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell
Reason:
Better specimen in a better photographic quality. -- Llez (talk)

 Comment I don't really see why this one is better. Better resolution and sharpness maybe ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Info Yes, exactly; and also a better specimen --Llez (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2009-06-03 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
It is the only image on Commons which shows the entire plant. Parentage: S. asperum × S. officinale. In Denmark, it was previously used as food for pigs, thus it can now be found in clusters here and there. The black roots should be sweet and edible - a property which is also hinted to from the Danish vernacular name, "Foder-Kulsukker", which means "Coal sugar for eating". -- Slaunger (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cartoffel (talk) on 2023-06-06 10:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
I think a cropped version of VI Symphytum xuplandicum plant 2009-05-20.jpg is clearly preferable for reasons of image composition. This here is a somewhat conservative crop and maybe an even more aggressive crop could be even better. -- Cartoffel (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
99of9 (talk) on 2011-09-07 03:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthony Albanese
Used in:
w:Anthony Albanese
Reason:
There was only one other Commons pic of this Australian MP. In that one he wasn't dressed as a politician would usually dress. -- 99of9 (talk)

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor lightening. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per A1Cafel. The now-PM also looks very different to what he was 12 years ago. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I don't think the fact that he looks different now is relevant to which photo is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-12 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Anthony Albanese
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Russet-naped wood-rail[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-07 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Aramides cajanea (Grey-necked Wood-rail)
Used in:
en:Grey-necked Wood-rail, es:Aramides cajanea, pt:Saracura-três-potes
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-15 09:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Aramides albiventris (Russet-naped wood-rail)
  •  Support The difference between this and the other photo is night and day! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question The scope is different. Is it possible to compare the images with the same scope? --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment You're right. I didn't read the scopes carefully enough. I will await a reply from Charlesjsharp before deciding whether I need to cross out my votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek and LexKurochkin: Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the other image was misidentified when put up for VI for a different species. But it shows as a VI of Aramides albiventris so I think the best solution is to deselect as VI as I had proposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Support I think it is an obvious mistake and deselecting the other image from VI would be acceptable solution. By the way, are there any procedure to edit VI scope in case of error?
    LexKurochkin (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Common ringed plover[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ken Billington (talk) on 2010-12-25 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Charadrius hiaticula Ringed Plover
Reason:
There are no high-resolution images on the main Wikipedia page -- Ken Billington (talk)

 Oppose 1) Look at the change in the syntax of scope. 2) File: Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11). JPG is better because I can see a leg.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done thanks for the suggestion, image has been changed to the one showing a leg. --Ken Billington (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-07-16 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Charadrius hiaticula (Common ringed plover)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-06-28 18:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-07-08 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans
  •  Support Better, because no distracting car and the right side of the building is visible. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support More details are readily seen at review size in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Glassy-winged skipper[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-06-09 11:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Xenophanes tryxus (Glassy-winged skipper) dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Wings damaged and white flower is a bit disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-10-24 10:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Xenophanes tryxus (Glassy-winged skipper) dorsal

 Support Best in scope. Wings aren't damaged here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of Vicente Guerrero[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2021-01-21 17:47 (UTC)
Scope:

Retrato Vicente Guerrero por Anacleto Escutia en Palacio Nacional (Mexico)

(Portrait of Vicente Guerrero by Anacleto Escutia in Palacio Nacional (Mexico))

Previous reviews

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ErickTErick (talk) on 2023-10-31 21:45 (UTC)
Scope:

Retrato póstumo del presidente Vicente Guerrero en el Museo Nacional de Historia, Ciudad de México

(Posthumous portrait of President Vicente Guerrero in the National Museum of History, Mexico City)
Reason:
The version of this image which currently considered the most valuable within its scope is of much lower quality than this newer version. In addition, the name given to the scope is factually wrong about the location of the painting (it is not within Palacio Nacional) and Mexico's Spanish name is misspelled (it's México, not Mexico). -- ErickTErick (talk)
  •  Comment There is already an image promoted in VI: you have to go to Pending Most valued review candidates --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Started MVR ErickTErick (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

El nacimiento de la Virgen María by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-07 11:22 (UTC)
Scope:
De Geboorte van de Maagd Maria (The Birth of the Virgin Mary) by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen
  •  Comment The convention on VIC is to give the name of the painting in the language of the painter - in this case, Dutch - with English in parentheses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 11:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Best in scope and useful. This is a retouched version of the original photo from the Museo Nacional de Bellas Artes. It appears to be identical to the original except for fixing a couple of blemishes. I've capitalised the painting name in the scope -- please revert if inappropriate. --Tagooty (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-07 11:22 (UTC)
Scope:
de geboorte van de maagd Maria (The Birth of the Virgin Mary) by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen
Open for review.
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

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

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

Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=751225986"