Jump to content

Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations 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.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI status

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

How to review an image

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • 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. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ 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. -- ~~~~ 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

[edit]

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

[edit]
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
60,644 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 54,720 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,366 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,558 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-13 09:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Adansonia grandidieri (Grandidier's baobab), fruits, dried specimen
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-10-18 13:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo della Consulta (Rome)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-10-18 13:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Esercito (Roma)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-18 15:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Blockhaus Maloutte (Bousbecque), view from Chem. de Blanderisse
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-19 08:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Couple of Ara chloropterus (Red-and-green macaw) in flight
Thank you for your review but I think that the present candidate is better than the one you linked for the following reasons:
  • The image you have linked is of very bad quality even at thumbnail size with a big amount of distracting noise across all the image.
  • In the image you have linked the light is very dull and dark and the subject stand out a lot less from the background than the present candidate.
  • In the present candidate the bokeh is a lot smoother to properly separates the subject from the background.
  • In the image you have linked the couple is far apart from each other and I much more prefer the proximity of the couple that I photographed because it seems better to me for a scope of a couple to having them closer to each other.
  • And finally as you mentioned, the image you linked is of much lower resolution (only 3 MP!) while the candidate has 23 MP (more than 7 times more).
In the light of these elements I think that the present candidate is clearly better than the image you have linked in my opinion -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Giles Laurent: Thank you for focusing on the issues associated with your image. That is the best way to respond to an oppose because if a response is found convincing, it could change minds.
You have a talent for wildlife photography and your image is of good quality and certainly higher resolution. VI evaluation does not have print quality resolution requirements of QI. “The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480 × 360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image)”. Basically, that is the resolution of image as seen at the size of the pictures on this page. So, higher resolution and all the other characteristics that go with it, are not paramount.
You make good points in your response and to be frank, my VI judgment for this image is a call, I just think the other one is better in terms of the scope. I like the birds being a little further apart and the higher viewpoint better shows their body form.
If someone disagrees, they will jump in. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am saddened to see the blatant bad faith of some... unless they are struck by a premature blindness that prevents them from seeing that this image is perfect and does us credit.
We wish there were more of them. This type of turpitude will keep them out of VI... it's damaging for everyone. I hope that other, more informed candidates will come forward to right this injustice.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment "...blatant bad faith”; “premature blindness”; “this type of turpitude”; “this injustice”...@Archaeodontosaurus: Please remember that Commons Valued Image is a consensus forum. It is acceptable and expected to disagree on occasion, even with yours.
If I am wrong, I am sure that another reviewer will come along to support the nomination. If not, the image is undecided. You win some; you lose some. There are worse fates in life than not receiving a VI rating.
Fortunately, I do not view your comments as a reflection on my character or personhood. I will continue to review VI nominations as I can. IMHO opinion, we need more reviewers, not less. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 16:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scope:
10-12, rue des Petits-Carreaux et devanture de Au Planteur, Paris

Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-20 09:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Melaleuca (limestone honey-myrtle), seeds, dried specimen
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-20 14:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Khrystynivka (village, Uman Raion) - House of Culture (view from the southwest)

 Best in Scope

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-20 14:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Chaikivka, Uman Raion - Paramedic station (view from the south)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
ReneeWrites (talk) on 2025-10-20 14:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Tomb of Charles Florentine of Salm, front complete view of the grave monument
Used in:
Karel Florentijn van Salm (NL), Karl Florentin zu Salm (DE)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-20 17:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Apse of Saint-Waast church (Moncheaux), view from Rue de Lestrez
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-10-20 17:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Experimental GT - left front view
Used in:
de:Opel GT
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-10-20 17:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Aero GT by Fissore - left front view
Used in:
de:Opel GT
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-10-20 17:13 (UTC)
Scope:
MG WA - right front view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-20 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Jabiru mycteria (Jabiru) feeding chicks in their nest
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-20 19:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Jabiru mycteria (Jabiru) taking off
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-20 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Jabiru mycteria (Jabiru), juvenile
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-20 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Pteronura brasiliensis (Giant otter), eating a fish
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-10-21 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Intruder (ship, 1971) Port side and aft.
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-21 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Keystone with floral decoration - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-21 05:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Fragment of a coffin depicting a face wearing a wig - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-21 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Milvus migrans (Black Kite) - taking off
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-21 06:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Pluvialis fulva (Pacific golden plover) - in flight (showing wing upperside)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-21 06:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Pluvialis fulva (Pacific golden plover) - in flight (showing wing underside)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-21 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Khrystynivka (village, Uman Raion) - Village council (view from the south)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-21 07:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Khrystynivka (village, Uman Raion) - Kindergarten (view from the east)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-21 07:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Aristolochia grandiflora, seeds, dried specimen
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-21 08:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylocarpus granatum (cannonball mangrove), wood, dried specimen
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-21 08:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Lanius vittatus (Bay-backed Shrike) - eating
Reason:
Previous reviews -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk)

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-10-21
Scope:
Alcis periphracta - dorsal
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-10-21
Scope:
Heterostegane tritocampsis - dorsal
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-10-21
Scope:
Homodes bracteigutta - dorsal
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-21 15:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of the municipal library of Valenciennes
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-21 16:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Cantilène de Sainte-Eulalie in the municipal library of Valenciennes
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexis Lours (talk) on 2025-10-21 20:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Hippolais polyglotta (Melodious Warbler)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexis Lours (talk) on 2025-10-21 20:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Phylloscopus collybita (Common Chiffchaff)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexis Lours (talk) on 2025-10-21 20:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Aythya fuligula (Tufted Duck), female, swimming

Scope changed from Aythya fuligula (Tufted Duck), female to Aythya fuligula (Tufted Duck), female, swimming --Alexis Lours (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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".
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexis Lours (talk) on 2025-10-21 20:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Aythya fuligula (Tufted Duck), male, swimming

 Oppose Aythya fuligula -Rotherhithe, London, England -male-8.jpg This image is the best, it corresponds to the chosen scope: because we see the legs. Aythya fuligula (male) swimming. Is a good scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support after scope change. --ReneeWrites (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scope changed from Aythya fuligula (Tufted Duck), male to Aythya fuligula (Tufted Duck), male, swimming --Alexis Lours (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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".
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-10-22
Scope:
Hypsopygia nigrivitta - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-10-22
Scope:
Piesmopoda semilutea - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-22 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
The ceiling of the nave of Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-22 05:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Bottle with a coiled snake neck - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-22 07:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Cryptostegia grandiflora (rubber vine), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-22 07:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove), wood, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-22 08:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Shukaivoda - House of Culture (view from the southwest)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-22 08:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Khrystynivka (village, Uman Raion) - School (view from the east)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-22 09:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Tour de la Dodenne (Valenciennes), view from Bd Carpeaux
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-10-22 20:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Riley Nine Gamecock - left front view
Used in:
de:Riley
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-10-22 20:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Rometsch Lawrence - right front view
Used in:
de:Rometsch, en:Rometsch, fi:Volkswagen Karmann Ghia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-10-22 20:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Rover 16 P2 sports tourer - left front view
Used in:
de:Rover (Automobilhersteller), de:Rover 16
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cvmontuy (talk) on 2025-10-22 15:48 (UTC)
Scope:
AI AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-22 21:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloroceryle aenea (American pygmy kingfisher), male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-22 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Ardea cocoi (Cocoi heron), eating a fish
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-10-22 22:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Nannopterum brasilianum (Neotropic cormorant) with a Pterygoplichthys ambrosettii (Snow king pleco)
Catching a fish is a reasonable sub-scope habit for this comorant but requiring the fish to be of the species – “Pterygoplichthys ambrosettii (Snow king pleco)” is IMHO too narrow per Valued Image:Scope guidelines. The scope is not a description of the image but a generic field or category such that someone else could reasonably make a similar image and nominate for VI under MVR.
As it is good information, I would suggest you keep the fish type in the image description but change the scope to something wider such as “Nannopterum brasilianum (Neotropic cormorant). --GRDN711 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-23 05:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Entrée du square Jérôme Cuzin à Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-23 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of a moine. Bawit Monastery. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-23 05:25 (UTC)
Scope:
The swing of the polichinelles by Giandomenico Tiepolo
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-23 07:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Shukaivoda - St. Michael's Church (view from the north)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-23 07:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Shukaivoda - Village council (view from the southwest)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-23 08:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Ferula tingitana (giant Tangier fennel), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-23 08:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove), wood, Cross-section
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-23 15:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Portal to the building, 46 rue de Famars, in Valenciennes, (West view)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ReneeWrites (talk) on 2025-10-23 17:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Tower of Sint-Katharinakerk, Hoogstraten, southern view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ReneeWrites (talk) on 2025-10-23 18:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Van Goghkerkje, list of preachers of the Van Gogh Church in Zundert, which includes the father of Vincent van Gogh
Used in:
Van Goghkerkje (Zundert)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-10-23 18:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Théâtre Espace Marais, Paris
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-24 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhinocyllus conicus (great banded furrow-bee) female on Cirsium arvense
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-24 05:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Crowned Virgin and Child 15th century - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-24 07:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagerstroemia indica (crape myrtle), fruits and seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-24 07:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Lumnitzera littorea (Lumnitzera littorea), wood, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-24 07:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Mankivka - Post office (view from the southwest)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-24 07:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Shukaivoda - School (view from the northeast)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-24 07:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Amandava amandava (Red Avadavat) - feeding on Thysanolaena latifolia
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-24 10:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Oriolus xanthornus (Black-hooded Oriole) - adult standing on nest

@Archaeodontosauru: I have used different subscope asper my understanding of scope guidelines for animals (more details in my talk page reply). Please correct me if I am wrong. Thank you --Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-24 10:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Oriolus xanthornus (Black-hooded Oriole) - adult sitting in nest
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-24 11:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Oriolus xanthornus (Black-hooded Oriole) - nestling standing on nest
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-10-24 11:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Oriolus xanthornus (Black-hooded Oriole) - nestling sitting in nest
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-10-24 14:29 (UTC)
Scope:
The Dance Lesson (1879) by Edgar Degas in National Gallery of Art
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-10-24 14:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Mrs. Wilks of Madras (1793) by John Smart
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2025-10-24 17:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Aliprandini Laifenthurn - Exterior
Used in:
de:Palazzo Aliprandini Laifenthurn, d:Q294810, it:Livo (Trentino-Alto Adige), etc.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-10-25 04:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Rock face above the reservoir Panixersee (Lag da Pigniu) above Andiast.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-10-25 05:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Geloina expansa, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-25 05:41 (UTC)
Scope:
La Flagellation - Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-10-25 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Olifant de Saint Orens - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-25 08:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Schinziophyton rautanenii (mongongo tree), fruits, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-10-25 09:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Avicennia marina (grey mangrove), wood, Cross-section
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-10-25 09:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Half-timbered house, 94 rue de Paris (Valenciennes), façade
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-25 09:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Mankivka - Mankivka Regional State Administration (view from the west)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-10-25 09:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Mankivka - Pension fund (view from the east)
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]

hamster

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2011-12-10 22:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster)

 Support Excellent. All criteria met.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)  Support Seems to be the best one Kersti (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-04 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European hamster)
Reason:
replacing image of museum specimen -- Charlesjsharp (talk)

talk]]) 14:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Acridotheres ginginianus nests

[edit]
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres ginginianus nests

 Comment Neither of the two images is VI, so Most Valued Review is not the right place for these. If you intended to nominate a Valued Image, choose the best one and put it at the bottom of the "New valued image nominations" section --Tagooty (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres ginginianus nests

 Comment Neither of the two images is VI, so Most Valued Review is not the right place for these. If you intended to nominate a Valued Image, choose the best one and put it at the bottom of the "New valued image nominations" section --Tagooty (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-24 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Old tavern Au chat barré avenue du Peuple Belge, Lille, view from Parc Louise de Bettignies
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)
Reason:
Perspective is ok on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]

 Support Light and colors are superior. --Milseburg (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-25 15:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Renaissance house, rue de Gand 31, Lille, view from rue des Tours
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-27 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, 61-63, rue de la Monnaie (Vieux-Lille), view from 28 Rue de la Monnaie
Used in:
Global usage
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, Lille
Reason:
The left facade is visible from this view. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

bats

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2015-08-05 13:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-05-06 15:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)
Reason:
I use a better camera these days! -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Karl Marx

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2015-12-20 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in:
see Global file usage
  •  Support I have checked this submision against the six VI criteria. AS this is a studio image, the geocoding requirement is not neccessary. In my opinion this submission meets the other five critieria. I would however recommend changing the scope from "Portraits of Karl Marx" (plural) to "Portrait of Karl Marx". (Singular) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 14:28, December 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
✓ Done ~ Moheen (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, There are several very good portrait paintings of KM. It is usual here to add "photographic portrait of KM".--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
User:Giovanni Cardinali (talk) on 2025-07-08 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in:
see Global file usage
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Peace Palace

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-12-15 16:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in:
fr:Palais de la Paix, fy:Fredespaleis, nl:Vredespaleis, ru:Дворец Мира

Scope changed from Peace Palace (front view), The Hague to Peace Palace (front view), The Hague. Note the underlying category has been changed, not the visible text. --Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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".
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolf im Wald on 2025-08-03 21:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in:
en:Andrew Carnegie, es:Arquitectura de los Países Bajos
Reason:
Nearly similar view but higher detail level. -- Wolf im Wald
  •  Support Compared to its predecessor this image is of far superior quality: detailing the imposing and enormously intricate brick- and stonework, flawlessly rendered and stitched, perfect verticals, exactly centered. Such an undertaking is not at all easy, as I know, and thus gives great credit to the photographer's efforts & skills. Seen at full size it is a one-of-a-kind image that not only exhibits a complete view of this edifice but also highlights and spotlights all the fine details of craftmanship combined in its construction. A joy to explore this image, simply phenomenal! -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Doris Day

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2015-03-27 10:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Doris Day

 Info Studio shot, so no geocoding. Yann (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: -1
2. DorisDay-midnightlace.jpg: +5 <--
=>
File:Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: Declined 
File:Day-midnightlace.jpg: Promoted <--

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JayCubby (talk) on 2025-08-07 01:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Doris Day
Used in:
extensive
Reason:
Good resolution reproduction of a useful studio portrait. -- JayCubby (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:05, 23 October 2025 (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

[edit]
   
Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"