Commons:Valued image candidates

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations

Skip to most valued reviews

Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques. Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria. A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope. The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR. If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Valued Image links: Main VI page Valued image candidates Valued image criteria Valued image scope Valued image value Nomination procedure Review procedure Most Valued Review Promotion rules Valued image closure How to nominate an image for VI status Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination. Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review. Adding a new nomination (image) Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button. Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage. Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section: |My-image-filename.jpg so that it looks like this: {{VICs ... |My-image-filename.jpg }} and save the candidate list. Renomination Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review. Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination. Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination. Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in |date={{subst:VI-time}} Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review). Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with |nominator=~~~ Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure. Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}") replace the review parameter with |review= {{subst:VIC-archive}} }} Save the page. There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews. Save the previous reviews archive page Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list. How to open a Most Valued Review There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: === Scope === {{VICs |candidate1.jpg |candidate2.jpg }} where 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 How to review an image Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it). Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion. Review procedure On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters. Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six. Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination. Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries. If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued. If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR. Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows: You type You get When *{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~  Comment My comment. -- Example You have a comment. *{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~  Info My information. -- Example You have information. *{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote. *{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria. *{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~  Question My question. -- Example You have a question. *{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria. If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template. Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page. How to update the status Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate: status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border). status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border). status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border). status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border). Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized. Changes in scope during the review period The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

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

53,980 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			48,497 (89.8%)
Undecided			3,010 (5.6%)
Declined			2,473 (4.6%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit) Nominated by: 廣九直通車 (talk) on 2024-01-24 09:50 (UTC) Scope: Arch of Reunification Reason: Major landscape in North Korea which have been demolished in 2024. The file depicts the entire sculpture with enough clarity to the details, thus it is believed that the file has its unique value in Commons. -- 廣九直通車 (talk) Isn't this one better? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)  Neutral My fault for overlooking this image. Feel free to create a MVR if you think your proposed image is better. -- 廣九直通車 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~Moheen (keep talking) on 2024-01-24 13:16 (UTC) Scope: Skull of Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus), (without the tusks, front right), Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)  Oppose I don't think we need a scope of an incomplete skull, when we have an image with tusks. Scope with tusks is appropriate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-24 13:54 (UTC) Scope: Psophodes olivaceus lateralis (Eastern whipbird)  Comment It is not clear to me which of the 30+ images in the linked CAT belong to this subspecies. --Tagooty (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-24 15:15 (UTC) Scope: Pardalotus quadragintus (Forty-spotted pardalote) at nest (man-made)  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-25 11:38 (UTC) Scope: Oriolus flavocinctus kingi (Green oriole) on nest  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)  Oppose The subject is rarely seen. ~Moheen (keep talking) 09:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC) In fact the interest is the nest! It is typical of this species. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)  Support As the nest is a deep cup, it is reasonable that the bird is largely hidden. This is the only image of the species in a nest. --Tagooty (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	View promotion Nominated by: Günther Frager (talk) on 2024-01-25 19:41 (UTC) Scope: Kullervon kirous (Kullervo cursing) by Akseli Gallen-Kallela - Finnish National Gallery  Comment Can you change scope to include original title and artist please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Done! Günther Frager (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)  Support thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-26 06:24 (UTC) Scope: Ritratto del cavaliere e procuratore Francsesco Morosini , Museo Correr in Venice  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-26 06:26 (UTC) Scope: Head of Dvârapâla (guardian of the door) - Kingdom of Champa (Vietnam) - Labit Museum  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-01-26 07:08 (UTC) Scope: Schlosshotel Chastè Restaurant (Tarasp)  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)  Question Is this a notable building please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your question: this old castle hotel is certainly a remarkable building and closely linked to the adjacent Tarasp Castle.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)  Oppose I don't think every hotel restaurant is worthy of a scope per VI guidelines. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2024-01-26 09:20 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1788) near Wiltingen, Germany.  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2024-01-26 09:15 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross at the L138 near Konz-Krettnach, Germany.  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-25 11:52 (UTC) Scope: Nettapus pulchellus (Green pygmy-goose) male in flight Useful and used --GRDN711 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC). Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-26 11:57 (UTC) Scope: Nettapus pulchellus (Green pygmy-goose) immature  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-26 11:55 (UTC) Scope: Accipiter novaehollandiae (Grey goshawk) white morph  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~Moheen (keep talking) on 2024-01-26 15:13 (UTC) Scope: Police turret bell, National Museum of Singapore  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~Moheen (keep talking) on 2024-01-26 15:51 (UTC) Scope: Physeter macrocephalus skeletons (side view) The scope must be Physeter macrocephalus skeleton Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC) ---- Scope changed from Physeter macrocephalus skeletons, Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum (side view) to Physeter macrocephalus skeletons (side view) ~Moheen (keep talking) 19:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Comment @Charlesjsharp:  Done. ~Moheen (keep talking) 19:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)  Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2024-01-27 04:50 (UTC) Scope: Papilionanda Ban Ki-moon Yoo Soon-taek hybrid orchid by David Lim (2012) - flower Used in: en:National Orchid Garden • wikidata:Q124355447 Reason: The National Orchid Garden, Singapore names hybrids after distinguished visitors. This specimen is located in the National Orchid Garden but is also available elsewhere. --Tagooty (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)  Support It's very difficult to understand the intricacies of cultivars. But the example you proposed is well argued in the Copmmon category.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)  Thank you. @Archaeodontosaurus One issue that I've been puzzling over is whether the name of the orignator and the year (David Lim 2012) should be included in the scope. With art, the artist name is included; with natural species, the discoverer is not included. A cultivar falls somewhere in between these two. Which convention to follow? I would appreciate your thoughts on whether the scope should be shortened. --Tagooty (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Personally, I am in favor of giving the name of the inventor. This would make it possible to better organize our future and not leave too many facilities to commercial companies which can multiply fanciful names. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus Ok, thanks. --Tagooty (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-28 06:11 (UTC) Scope: Portrait of the Emperor Augustus as Pontifex Maximus - Museo archeologico nazionale (Venice)  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-28 06:13 (UTC) Scope: Hibiscus coccineus - flower and bottoms  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-28 06:15 (UTC) Scope: Wisdom by Titien in Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Venice  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2024-01-28 17:23 (UTC) Scope: Sphynx du Cercle Philosophique et Culturel de Lille, view from rue Thiers Used in: Temple maçonnique de Lille  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2024-01-29 05:55 (UTC) Scope: Delleboersterheide Solitary birch (Betula) in a protected nature reserve.  Oppose For a plant or animal, VI is best image in the species globally, unless there is some visible geographical variation. The scope should be linked to the species CAT. --Tagooty (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-29 05:54 (UTC) Scope: Battle of Lepanto by Andrea Vicentino - Museo Correr, Venice  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-29 05:56 (UTC) Scope: Alberto Santos-Dumont by François Flameng - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-29 05:59 (UTC) Scope: Applique with warrior from Oderzo - Museo Archeologico Nazionale Venice  Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2024-01-29 15:30 (UTC) Scope: Mehrangarh Fort Museum, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - Gazni Khan cannon Used in: wikidata:Q124363279  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-30 05:55 (UTC) Scope: Insegna dell'arte dei Remeri (fabbricanti di remi) - Correr Museum Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-30 05:58 (UTC) Scope: Brahmaea europaea – mounted specimen male ventral Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-30 06:00 (UTC) Scope: Tiberius Portrait of the ''Imperium Maius'' type - Museo archeologico Nazionale (Venice) Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

agouti

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC) Scope: Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (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)  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)  Best in Scope now. --Tupungato (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Portrait of Vicente Guerrero

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  Comment Good image, good caption, but the scope is too imprecise (it can be improved) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus:  Done the scope has changed--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (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)  Done Started MVR ErickTErick (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:02 (UTC) Scope: El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach  Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) I am doing it according this reccomendation Ezarateesteban 23:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:00 (UTC) Scope: El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach  Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Anciens bains municipaux de Colmar

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-01-22 12:21 (UTC) Scope: Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-12-29 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:40, 28 January 2024 (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

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