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.
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.
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.
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:
DeclinedVICs 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. UndecidedVICs 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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Reason:
This walk is the start of an encounter with the historical heritage of Wambrechies (Clayessens distillery, Catry brewery, Fort de la Redoute) -- Pierre André (talk)
Reason:
The painting by Willem Werniers: the Wedding at Cana in Villeneuve-d'Ascq and the furniture consisting of an armchair and two chairs are protected as a historic monument object and listed in the Palissy database -- Pierre André (talk)
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?
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]
CommentCharles - 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]
"showing back feathers" needed as there is another scope with chest feathers GRDN711. The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page
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]
CommentCharles 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 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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 Also, I wouldn't be against adding separate scopes for different angles. The building looks similar but not completely the same on all sides. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:33, 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 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Oppose Intervention not justified the initial image is excellent and has already been judged as such. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 18 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 11:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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?
Oppose1) 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]
OpposeThis is better IMO, a bit more shadow but no distracting car and the right side of the house is visible. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Good image, good caption, but the scope is too imprecise (it can be improved) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
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.
Skip to image nominations
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png){kind=small}
.jpg)
_View_of_Venice_by_Jacopo_de%27_Barbari_-_Museo_Correr.jpg)
_Self_portrait_by_Antonio_Canova_-_Museo_Correr.jpg)
_Oncocera_semirubella_-_Kiskunfélegyhàza_Hongrie_-_male_dorsal.jpg)
_Biga_de_la_Passió_-_Prendiment_de_Crist_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg)
_1X7A1504.jpg)
.jpg)
_Cupid_and_Psyque,_1787-1794_-_Museo_Correr.jpg)
_Temple_a_les_nimfes_-_Joaquim_Torres-Garcia_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg)
_Placa_d%27enquadernació_(Crucifixió)_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg)
,_10-07-2023._(actm.)_19.jpg)
_coupe_1X7A1502.jpg)
_Papa_Clemente_XIII_-_Antonio_Canova_-_Museo_Correr.jpg)
_Interior_-_Pere_Torné_Esquius_-_MNAC.jpg)
_(I)_Progetti_per_il_monumento_funebre_al_doge_Francesco_Morosini_-_Antonio_Gaspari_-_Museo_Correr.jpg)
_Funeral_stele_of_Giovanni_Volpato_by_Antonio_Canova_-_Gallerie_Accademia.jpg)
_Tethea_or_-_Boskovice_Czech_Republic-_Male_dorsal.jpg)
_Frontal_d%27altar_de_Mosoll_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg)
._18-07-2023._(d.j.b)_03.jpg)
_Male_bust_first_half_of_the_2nd_century_AD_-_Museo_archeologico_nazionale_di_Venezia_(inv.29).jpg)
_Tethea_or_-_Boskovice_Czech_Republic-_Male_ventral.jpg)
_La_Trini_-_Ramon_Casas_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg)
.jpg)
_Los_Tarrales.jpg)
.jpg)
_Orange_Walk.jpg)
.jpg)
_Honduras.jpg)
_male.jpg)
_Cayo.jpg)
_(11).jpg)
_Oppdal.jpg)
.jpg)
_Cundinamarca.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_View_of_Venice_by_Jacopo_de%27_Barbari_-_Museo_Correr.jpg){kind=link}
_View_of_Venice_by_Jacopo_de%27_Barbari_-_Museo_Correr.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Self_portrait_by_Antonio_Canova_-_Museo_Correr.jpg){kind=link}
_Self_portrait_by_Antonio_Canova_-_Museo_Correr.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Oncocera_semirubella_-_Kiskunfélegyhàza_Hongrie_-_male_dorsal.jpg){kind=link}
_Biga_de_la_Passió_-_Prendiment_de_Crist_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg){kind=link}
_1X7A1504.jpg){kind=link}
_1X7A1504.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Cupid_and_Psyque,_1787-1794_-_Museo_Correr.jpg){kind=link}
_Cupid_and_Psyque,_1787-1794_-_Museo_Correr.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Temple_a_les_nimfes_-_Joaquim_Torres-Garcia_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg){kind=link}
_Temple_a_les_nimfes_-_Joaquim_Torres-Garcia_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Placa_d%27enquadernació_(Crucifixió)_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg){kind=link}
_Placa_d%27enquadernaci%C3%B3_(Crucifixi%C3%B3)_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
,_10-07-2023._(actm.)_19.jpg){kind=link}
,_10-07-2023._(actm.)_19.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_coupe_1X7A1502.jpg){kind=link}
_coupe_1X7A1502.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Papa_Clemente_XIII_-_Antonio_Canova_-_Museo_Correr.jpg){kind=link}
_Papa_Clemente_XIII_-_Antonio_Canova_-_Museo_Correr.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Interior_-_Pere_Torné_Esquius_-_MNAC.jpg){kind=link}
_Interior_-_Pere_Torn%C3%A9_Esquius_-_MNAC.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_(I)_Progetti_per_il_monumento_funebre_al_doge_Francesco_Morosini_-_Antonio_Gaspari_-_Museo_Correr.jpg){kind=link}
_(I)_Progetti_per_il_monumento_funebre_al_doge_Francesco_Morosini_-_Antonio_Gaspari_-_Museo_Correr.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Funeral_stele_of_Giovanni_Volpato_by_Antonio_Canova_-_Gallerie_Accademia.jpg){kind=link}
_Funeral_stele_of_Giovanni_Volpato_by_Antonio_Canova_-_Gallerie_Accademia.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Tethea_or_-_Boskovice_Czech_Republic-_Male_dorsal.jpg){kind=link}
_Tethea_or_-_Boskovice_Czech_Republic-_Male_dorsal.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Frontal_d%27altar_de_Mosoll_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg){kind=link}
_Frontal_d%27altar_de_Mosoll_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
._18-07-2023._(d.j.b)_03.jpg){kind=link}
._18-07-2023._(d.j.b)_03.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Male_bust_first_half_of_the_2nd_century_AD_-_Museo_Correr_(inv.29).jpg){kind=link}
_Male_bust_first_half_of_the_2nd_century_AD_-_Museo_Correr_(inv.29).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Tethea_or_-_Boskovice_Czech_Republic-_Male_ventral.jpg){kind=link}
_Tethea_or_-_Boskovice_Czech_Republic-_Male_ventral.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_La_Trini_-_Ramon_Casas_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg){kind=link}
_La_Trini_-_Ramon_Casas_-_Museu_Nacional_d%27Art_de_Catalunya.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Los_Tarrales.jpg){kind=link}
_Los_Tarrales.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Orange_Walk.jpg){kind=link}
_Orange_Walk.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Orange_Walk_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Honduras.jpg){kind=link}
_Honduras.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_male.jpg){kind=link}
_male.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Cayo.jpg){kind=link}
_Cayo.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_(11).jpg){kind=link}
_(11).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Oppdal.jpg){kind=link}
_Oppdal.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_Cundinamarca.jpg){kind=link}
_Cundinamarca.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
