Commons:Кандидаты в ценные изображения

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, and image sets for valued image set (VIS) 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 or set 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 or set 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 Как номинировать изображение или набор изображений на получение статуса «ценного» Кандидатуры будет оцениваться с использованием критериев, перечисленных на странице Признаки ценных изображений Пожалуйста, прочитайте эти критерии перед номинацией изображения, чтобы среди кандидатов было меньше тех, что имеют мало шансов на успех. Убедитесь, что вы понимаете концепцию предметной области и выбрали правильную предметную область для своего изображения. Пожалуйста, убедитесь, что предлагаемое вами изображение соответствует всем необходимым критериям до его выдвижения. Например, если нужен шаблон {{location}}, то он должен быть поставлен заранее (студийные работы можно пометить шаблоном {{Studio work}}). Если нет соответствующих категорий, то создайте их заранее перед номинацией. Хотя некоторые отзывы могут помочь устранить погрешности, это ваша ответственность, как номинатора оформить ваше изображение до того, как предоставить его на рассмотрение. Если вы предложили изображение, которое игнорирует один из критериев, не удивляйтесь, если оно не получит статуса ценного изображения. 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. Adding a new nomination (set) Step 1: Choose a set name, and type that into this box after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/Mysetname. Then click on the "Create new set nomination" button. Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VISC subpage. Step 3: Open Commons:Valued image candidates/Set candidate list Click here, and add your set at at the bottom of the page using this format: {{Commons:Valued image candidates/A vulca...... {{Commons:Valued image candidates/Mysetname}} and save the set candidate list. Повторная номинация Отклоненные кандидаты в качественные изображения и наборы могут быть повторно выдвинуты любым зарегистрированным участником только после того как одна или несколько основных причин, из-за которых изображение было отклонено будут исправлены. Undecided кандидаты в качественные изображения и наборы могут быть повторно выдвинуты в том же состоянии, хотя рекомендуется рассмотреть и исправить причины, которые, возможно, помешали получению статуса во время предыдущей номинации. После того, как проблемы исправлены нужно выполнить следующую процедуру повторной номинации: Шаг 1: Отредактируйте подстраницу кандидата, которого Вы повторно номинировать. Отклоненные заявки находятся в категории [[:Category:Declined valued image candidates}, а заявки, по которым не было принято решение в категории Category:Undecided valued image candidates. Страницы в этих категориях отсортированы по дате предыдущей номинации. Шаг 2: Замените предыдущие дату и время номинации новыми. Для этого нужно вставить строку |date={{subst:VI-time}} Шаг 3: Замените статус "undecided" или "declined" на "nominated" (или "discussed", если изображение добавляется в раздел Most Valued Review). Шаг 4: Если предыдущую номинацию делал другой участник, то нужно заменить имя номинатора. Для этого нужно вставить строку |nominator=~~~ Шаг 5: Если у кандидата до этого не было архивной ссылки на предыдущее обсуждение, то ещё можно сделать следующим способом: Вырезать текст в предыдущей секции "review section" (нужно оставить закрывающие фигурные скобки "]]") Заменить параметр "review" строкой |review= {{subst:VIC-archive}} }} Сохранить страницу Появится красная ссылка на предыдущую номинацию. Кликните на ней и вставьте предыдущий обзор Сохраните эту подстраницу Шаг 6: Добавить подстраницу в список кандидатов How to open a Most Valued Review There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: === Scope === {{VICs |candidate1.jpg |candidate2.jpg }} where candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the VIC subpages of the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR. The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing. How to review the candidates How to review an image Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it). Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion. Review procedure On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters. Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six. Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination. Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries. If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued. If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR. Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows: You type You get When *{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~  Comment My comment. -- Example You have a comment. *{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~  Info My information. -- Example You have information. *{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote. *{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria. *{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~  Question My question. -- Example You have a question. *{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria. If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template. Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page. How to update the status Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate: status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border). status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border). status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border). status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border). Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized. Changes in scope during the review period The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

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

32,276 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			28,658 (88.8%)
Undecided			1,646 (5.1%)
Declined			1,972 (6.1%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-01 07:02 (UTC) Scope: The Bo-Kaap Heritage Mural (NE-SW exposure) by Nasser Palangi, 93 Wale Street, Cape Town Used in: See global usage Q (Q) good for me but what does the South African law say about copyright, about comteporain artists? This is a public art from the public place which is open for all in 24 hours. As per different sources, it is not restricted to publish, IMO. What do you think? ~MOHEEN (keep talking) 05:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)  Comment Freedom of panorama Although it is backward and grotesque I fear that as in France there is a copyright on this type of works in South Africa. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I don't think this get's by Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#South_Africa "The copyright in an artistic work shall not be infringed by its reproduction or inclusion in a cinematograph film ... if such work is permanently situated in a street, square or a similar public place.". -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Skimel (talk) on 2018-09-01 09:33 (UTC) Scope: Bombing of Cézembre Used in: w:fr:Bombardement de Cézembre  Question - Should the scope be "Results of the bombing of Cézembre"? Because in the current scope, isn't File:Cezembre Bombing 1 (cropped).jpg a clearer example of the bombing itself? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-01 10:54 (UTC) Scope: 65 Chiappini Street, Cape Town, front Used in: See global usage 65A Chiappini Street, Bo-Kaap (02).jpg This one is much better, it shows the whole of the facade. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2018-09-02 04:04 (UTC) Scope: Nilachal, Bandarban,  CommentThe direction of the view would be necessary in the scope. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)  CommentAlso the saturation and white balance look very off when compared to other photos in that category. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2018-09-02 06:17 (UTC) Scope: Shabash Bangladesh (Bravo Bangladesh) sculpture (Left side view)  Comment Perspective and color blance problems. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2018-09-02 17:19 (UTC) Scope: Image of Crucifixion in Our Lady of Consolation church, Buenos Aires, Argentina  Comment - His name in English is "Jesus Christ", but isn't it simpler to simply call this "Crucifixion in Our Lady of Consolation (etc.)"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)  Done thanks!!!!--Ezarateesteban 11:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Dirtsc (talk) on 2018-09-03 11:07 (UTC) Scope: office building Kapstadtring 2/4 entrance view Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sharpery (talk) on 2018-09-03 15:59 (UTC) Scope: Front profile of the Zwicker House  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-09-03 20:55 (UTC) Scope: Saint Stanislaus church in Gościeszyn, side entrance Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-04 05:54 (UTC) Scope: Sri Sri Rama Lakshmana Kunda (south exposure) Used in: See global usage  Comment I can not understand what I see, it might be a sentence of explanation.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)  Info @Archaeodontosaurus: Please see the file description, hope it will be helpful. ~MOHEEN (keep talking) 05:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)  Support the precision in the caption seems to me very useful. do not forget that your images are seen all over the world.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2018-09-04 05:59 (UTC) Scope: Branta canadensis (Canada goose) egg  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-04 07:11 (UTC) Scope: Beas Kund, south-east exposure Used in: See global usage  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-04 08:35 (UTC) Scope: Pavilion at east end of screen wall, Stanley Park Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L4  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-04 09:02 (UTC) Scope: Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra Satsang Gate Used in: See global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-04 13:52 (UTC) Scope: Carriage ramps and catacombs, St James's Gardens - carriage ramps Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-04 13:52 (UTC) Scope: Carriage ramps and catacombs, St James's Gardens - catacombs Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: T.Bednarz (talk) on 2018-09-04 15:15 (UTC) Scope: Lukáš Budínský  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: clpo13(talk) on 2018-09-04 16:52 (UTC) Scope: Samsung WB350F front  Support --Bgag (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: clpo13(talk) on 2018-09-04 16:53 (UTC) Scope: Samsung WB350F back  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-04 17:33 (UTC) Scope: Gopal Temple, Puthia, western-front exposure Used in: See global usage  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Bgag (talk) on 2018-09-04 19:40 (UTC) Scope: Rinpung Dzong, Bhutan exterior North view  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-09-04 20:12 (UTC) Scope: Basilica of the Visitation in Wambierzyce, exposure from SE  Support That category could use some organization. Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-09-04 20:33 (UTC) Scope: Our Lady of the Rosary church in Lubniewice, exposure from SE  Support Best in Scope IMO, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-09-04 20:37 (UTC) Scope: Our Lady of the Rosary church in Lubniewice, exposure from SW  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Milseburg (talk) on 2018-09-04 20:35 (UTC) Scope: Panoramics from Burg Alt-Hohensolms Used in: de:Altenberg (Hohenahr) Reason: The view is largely overgrown. Since the shots are not repeatable, I think the panorama is valuable. -- Milseburg (talk)  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-09-04 20:41 (UTC) Scope: Riding hall in Gościeszyn  Support Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-09-04 20:43 (UTC) Scope: Outbuilding in Gościeszyn  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-09-04 21:31 (UTC) Scope: "Moerenpoort" in Tongeren, Belgium (view West).  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-04 23:21 (UTC) Scope: Grove City Gold Star Memorial Monument, exposure from the NE Used in: en:Grove City, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-04 23:32 (UTC) Scope: Grove City Municipal Safety Complex, exposure from the NW Used in: en:Grove City, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-04 23:39 (UTC) Scope: Grove City Medical Center Under Construction (2018), exposure from the S Used in: en:Grove City, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2018-09-05 02:17 (UTC) Scope: Haus Neuhofs, Krefeld-Uerdingen (west view)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2018-09-05 02:19 (UTC) Scope: St. Michael, Krefeld-Uerdingen (exterior)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2018-09-05 02:22 (UTC) Scope: Station building of the Krefeld-Uerdingen railway station  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2018-09-05 02:25 (UTC) Scope: Rheintor (“Rhine Gate”), Krefeld-Uerdingen (closed, city side)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-05 05:05 (UTC) Scope: Manduca brontes cubensis mounted specimen male ventral  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-05 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Roques commune of Bourg-Saint-Bernard, war memorial  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-05 05:08 (UTC) Scope: Portrait of Alfonso d'Este by Titian Fondation Bemberg Toulouse  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-05 15:30 (UTC) Scope: Dixie Dean statue Used in: See global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2018-09-05 17:06 (UTC) Scope: Mancinella alouina (Alou Rock Snail), shell  Support Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2018-09-05 18:21 (UTC) Scope: Tachyeres brachypterus (Falkland steamer duck) egg  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-05 20:42 (UTC) Scope: Spellow Lane church Used in: en:Spellow Lane church, Walton  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-05 22:06 (UTC) Scope: Blacklick, Ohio Sign Used in: en:Blacklick, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-05 22:17 (UTC) Scope: Rickenbacker International Airport Control Tower, exposure from the north Used in: en:Rickenbacker International Airport  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-06 00:57 (UTC) Scope: Westerville Fire Station 112, exposure from the west Used in: en:Westerville, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-06 09:05 (UTC) Scope: Manduca jordani mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-06 05:14 (UTC) Scope: War memorial, Aspet, Haute-Garonne, France  Best in Scope, meets all the criteria. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 08:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-06 05:15 (UTC) Scope: La seine (environs de Rouen) by Albert Marquet, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2018-09-06 07:03 (UTC) Scope: Anseranas semipalmata (magpie goose) eggs  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Adámoz (talk) on 2018-09-06 15:44 (UTC) Scope: Old veteran (old machine) in Olbramovice in the Czech Republic.  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-07 01:30 (UTC) Scope: Grove City Police Memorial Used in: en:Grove City, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-07 01:32 (UTC) Scope: Creekside Gahanna Plaza, exposure from the northeast Used in: en:Creekside Gahanna  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-07 03:18 (UTC) Scope: Obetz Memorial Park Sign Used in: en:Obetz, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-07 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Manduca jordani mounted specimen male ventral  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-07 05:09 (UTC) Scope: Monuement of Cardinal Sourrieu, Aspet  Support In a sub-cat but that's fine. Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-07 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Le théâtre en plein air, Alger by Albert Marquet, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-07 10:30 (UTC) Scope: Boathouse on Stanley Park lake Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L4 Reason: This shows the left return to give an idea of scale. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-07 11:56 (UTC) Scope: Bridge at southeast of Stanley Park lake - genereal views Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L4 Reason: Complete view, uncluttered by local children. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-07 19:52 (UTC) Scope: 25 Pilgrim Street, Liverpool Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-07 19:51 (UTC) Scope: 36 & 38 Pilgrim Street, Liverpool - front Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-07 20:33 (UTC) Scope: Ohio State Route 142 and U.S. 40 intersection Used in: en:Ohio State Route 142  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-09-07 20:35 (UTC) Scope: Grandview Heights Municipal Building Sign Used in: en:Grandview Heights, Ohio  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2018-09-07 21:20 (UTC) Scope: Granaria frumentum, shell, normal form  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-07 21:37 (UTC) Scope: Bridge across Stanley Park lake Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L4  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-08 04:55 (UTC) Scope: Eumorpha elisa mounted specimen male dorsal Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-08 04:57 (UTC) Scope: The hamlet of Girosp, Aspet, Haute-Garonne France. The church of the nineteenth century. Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-09-08 05:00 (UTC) Scope: El gos abandonat by Artur Aldomà Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2018-09-08 06:18 (UTC) Scope: Anser albifrons (greater white-fronted goose) egg Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-09-08 08:15 (UTC) Scope: Shelter south of bridge in Stanley Park Used in: en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L4 Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: ~MOHEEN (keep talking) on 2018-09-08 08:26 (UTC) Scope: World War II Guard Pillbox, at the main entrance to Robben Island Maximum Security Prison, north exposure Used in: See global usage Open for review.

Pending valued image set candidates

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