Reason:
So far best nigth/dusk photo from Michelangelo hill, would say best remote view in general (dusk view is far more beneficial - colors). -- Mile (talk)
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: has much experience with Valued Image nominations. I am going to express my opinion but would encourage him to further comment if he wishes.
Per COM:VIC, there are three Valued Image nomination cases - new nomination, renomination and MVR - Most Valued Review. MVR applies only when there is an existing image that already has a VI rating based on a defined generic scope (you will see a result statement indicating that it was reviewed and supported for VI as shown in the MVR for "Remote view of Florence Duomo by night".
@Sebring12Hrs: - when I search Commons on the results of the first VI nomination found at "Commons:Valued image candidates/Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole, 24 Rue Chanoinesse, 75004 Paris, 1 May 2018.jpg", I find there was no review on this VI nomination - no support, no oppose; therefore undecided. Probably the personality rights statement based on the people present that made reviewers uncomfortable in expressing an opinion on VI.
You have brought forth another image of the same building but without people. That should take care of the personality issue. IMHO, suggest you remove this MVR and enter this different image as a new VI nomination with the same scope and scope-link as previous. Please add a clear reason in the new VI nom describing what you are doing. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment Ok for the base, but wa can't really see the face. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Comment@Thi: - When I search Commons on "Commons:Valued image candidates/Bust Of Bertrand Russell-Red Lion Square-London.jpg/Archive of previous reviews", I see that there was no decision on the original VI nom - just a comment from Ikan expressing concern about Bertrand's head without a stand. In your new image, you appear to have addressed that issue. There probably could be 2 VIs here - one for the head and another for the head + stand.
IMHO, suggest you remove the MVR and enter this head + stand image as a new VI nomination with a suitable scope and scope-link. Please add a clear reason in the new VI nom that describes what you are doing and why you think if merits VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment@WildMouse76: - When I search Commons on "Commons:Valued image candidates/CygnusOlorJuvenile.jpg/Archive of previous reviews", I see 1 support vote; 1 oppose with a decision of undecided on your last VI nomination of this image.
As there is no existing VI, IMHO I suggest you remove your image as an MVR and enter your image as a renomination with the changed scope of "Cygnus olor (mute swan) (juvenile swimming)" with appropriate scope-link. Clearly state in the reason line the change you are making for this renomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: I'm only doing the MVR because of the other image, which I think might be more valuable. I will clearly state that this is a renomination. I tried to follow the MVR rules and renomination. Let me know which image you think is better. -- WildMouse76 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}