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]
