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
61,408 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,397 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,414 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,597 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Dolno Kosovrasti
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  • Kiril Simeonovski - It is not a VI guideline, but it has been the tradition for Valued Image nominations, that we only nominate 3 per day. That reduces workload for reviewers so that your images receive a VI review.
 Question For clarification - are Dolno Kosovrasti and Gorno Kosovrasti, two separate villages? --GRDN711 (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are separate villages, and there are separate Wikipedia articles (see Dolno Kosovrasti and Gorno Kosovrasti). I was looking for a limit of the number of nominations and carefully went through the nomination rules, but I couldn't find anything and thought there's no limit. Thank you for pointing out this. I will follow the practice of nominating no more than 3 per day from now on. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 10:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Assumption of the Holy Virgin (Nikuljane)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This is the church of the 14-th century Zabel Monastery, which is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Jesus (Arbanaško)
Used in:
Црква „Вознесение Христово“ - Арбанашко (Macedonian Wikipedia), Church of the Ascension of Jesus (Arbanaško) (Wikidata)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This church was bult in 1938, and it is notable for the nice use of stone. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Presentation of the Theotokos (Obednik)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1956 on the foundations of an older church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:40 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Velmevci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1838, and it is a very good example of the revival church architectural style. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Manastir)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church's construction began in the 11th century and it was completed in the 13th century. It is a very good example of the Middle Byzantine Architecture. The church is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Sts. Constantine and Helena (Vakuf)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. Orthodox churches are usually built on hills, which gives them dominant position that overlooks the place. This church is unique as it was built on an elevated platform that gives it a dominant position. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:17 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Old Church (Šopsko Rudare)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This is a very old church from the 16th century, and it is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:13 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Prikovci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church has an interesting architecture as its base is a square with a polygonal dome on the top. Churches with domes typically follow the cross-in-square pattern, which is not the case here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Prikovci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in the 19th century. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:06 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George of Kratovo Church (Kratovo)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1925, and its architecture is a blend of multiple styles. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Kratovo River
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the river. The passes through the town of Kratovo and is famous for its numerous bridges. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Popova Kula
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the winery. The picture nicely depicts a building of a winery. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment Too dark (underexposed). --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I've uploaded a brighter version. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Negotino power plant
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the power plant. The power plant has significant contribution to the country's energy production. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-12 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Building of IV Lyceum in Chorzów, view from the west
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)

 Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Thanks for the feedback, I've uploaded new version from RAW file; how does the photo look now? --Gower (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Perfect now. Thank you for this correction. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Kapelusz exhibition hall in Chorzów, view from the southwest
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Roadside chapel "u Koconia" in Ujsoły, front view
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)

Best in scope, but not used...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 19:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Infectious diseases building, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, south-west view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 19:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Main building, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, west view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Main building, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, north-west view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Berufsfeuerwehr Bozen, front view of fire station
@Charlesjsharp: It is the only professional fire station in all of South Tyrol (as opposed to voluntary and company fire departments) and responsible for the entire province with over half a million of inhabitants. IMO, this exceeds local interest. --Aciarium (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Apologies, I don't know why I forgot to add it. --Aciarium (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 21:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Hörsaalgebäude (Montanuniversität Leoben), south view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-13 23:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Island Belle I (ship, 1988), bow view.

Best in scope, but not used...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-14 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Tonganaella perna (Perna Tellin), right valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-14 06:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Terellia winthemi - female on Cirsium vulgare
  •  Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The inclusion of the scientific names of two species in the scope is confusing (which one is being nominated?), overly descriptive and two narrow. One option would be to use a higher level scope such as "Terellia winthemi - female" but you have an even better image of this insect for that scope that is already VI. Another workable option would be "Terellia winthemi - female, feeding".
    A good place for the plant species information would be to put it in the image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This species of fly feeds selectively on this species of plant. That is why both species are mentioned. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-14 06:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of a woman with an Indian shawl. - 'Musée des Amériques' - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-14 11:31 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Kazimierza Merkleina Street in Władysławowo, view from the northwest
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-14 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Żyglin, front elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
  •  Comment Too dark because a polariser was used and not really the most valuable picture of the church as the building is not fully visible from this angle. I think this one looks more representative. I don't get what is meant by the 'front elevation', but this could be a valued image of the bell tower if that's a valid scope. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:05, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Kiril Simeonovski: too dark - I don't think so but OK, anyway my scope isn't "the most valuable picture of the church" but the "front elevation" (facade) (meaning of elevation explained in the dictionary: link), those two pictures are uncomparable in proposed scope. --Gower (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If 'front elevation' is an acceptable scope, then 'bell tower' is better in this case. The bell tower is an essential part of every church, and it's practically a separate building. I agree that this picture should become VI, but it's important to clearly define the scope as this may set a precedent for future nominations. I thought that we allow to have up to two VI per church—one for the exterior and one for the interior. In case we can go with a frontal view, then the apse, dome and other unique elements from the church architecture can also be considered valid scopes. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Kiril Simeonovski: sorry, maybe 'front elevation' is not the best wording here, it can be also: "front view" or "view from the west" in that case. More experienced editors told me previously to add directions for scope precision --Gower (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-14 11:34 (UTC)
Scope:
49A building in Gdańsk, interior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Mural "Nie spierdolcie tego" means "Don't fuck this up". -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-14 14:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Guira guira (Guira cuckoo) in flight
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-14 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Spheniscus humboldti (Humboldt penguin)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-14 14:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Larus dominicanus (Kelp gull) in flight
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-14 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Subaru Baja - left rear view
Used in:
de:Subaru Baja, de:Subaru Legacy
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-14 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
KGM Tivoli - left rear view
Used in:
de:KGM Tivoli
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-14 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Expedition (fourth generation) Max - left rear view
Used in:
de:Ford Expedition
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-12-15 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Inflorescence of a Rostrinucula dependens
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase decorated with a parrot Culture Chimù - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful & Used.-- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Marine by Joseph Vernet- Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Tonganaella perna (Perna Tellin), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Phylloscopus fuscatus (Dusky Warbler) - eating.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-15 07:10 (UTC)
Scope:
1 Doki Street in Gdańsk, view from the south
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument of Poland; building where August Agreements were signed. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Useful & Used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-15 07:24 (UTC)
Scope:
47A building in Gdańsk, southern elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument of Poland. Part of Cesarska Shipyard in Gdańsk. More documentation: link -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-15 07:31 (UTC)
Scope:
150A building in Gdańsk, view from the south
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-12-15 09:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Main entrance of the Esztergom Cathedral
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-15 11:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Entrance to the Golden Temple of Dambulla (Sri Lanka), East view from Sath Paththini Devalaya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-15 13:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Semnopithecus entellus (Northern plains gray langur) juvenile - feeding.

but underexposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: Thank you, I have corrected and replaced with a new virsion. -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-15 13:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Dicrurus aeneus (Bronzed Drongo) - eating.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-15 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Schoenicola platyurus (Broad-tailed Grassbird)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-15 19:21 (UTC)
Scope:
KGM Tivoli - left front view
Used in:
de:KGM Tivoli

 Support Useful & Used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-15 19:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Citroen ë-C3 - left rear view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-15 19:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Audi S e-tron GT - left rear view
Used in:
de:Audi e-tron GT
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-12-16 05:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Reformierte Kirche Castrisch Main entrance.

useful --Llez (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-16 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Bractechlamys vexillum (Distant scallop), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-16 08:54 (UTC)
Scope:
22 Henryka Dąbrowskiego Street in Chorzów, northeastern elevation
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-16 12:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloephaga hybrida (Kelp goose) male

 Comment As there are many images in the CAT, will be helpful to have a cat for male birds. --Tagooty (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-16 12:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloephaga hybrida (Kelp goose) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-16 12:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Patagioenas picazuro picazuro (Piccazuro pigeon) in flight

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-12-16 13:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Yacoub el Mansour Reservoir, north part with low water level
Used in:
en:Ouirgane • en:Yacoub el Mansour Dam • wikidata:Q86587448
Reason:
Depicts the north part of the reservoir up to the dam, including part of the village of Ouirgane on the right. Owing to several years of drought, the water level is much below the full level. -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-12-16 13:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Ouirgane, view from the northwest
Used in:
en:Ouirgane
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-12-16 13:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Tazekka Peak, south face
Reason:
Shows the topography from the south, with live oak on the lower slopes and Atlas cedar near the peak. -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-16 13:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Zapornia akool (Brown Crake) - swimming.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-16 14:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Takifugu rubripes (Japanese pufferfish)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-16 16:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Elisabeth church in Chorzów, front view
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument from 1844, Lutheran church named after Elisabeth Ludovika of Bavaria. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-16 16:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Main building of Management of Zamoyski Estate complex in Zwierzyniec, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument from 18th century. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-16 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Bowl decorated with a frieze of orca - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Comment 1. Scope and description: I think "orcs" should be "orca". An "orc" is a fictional humanoid monster. 2. The linked CAT has many different objects related to orcas. Will be useful to have a sub-cat for this bowl. --Tagooty (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-16 16:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Nymphe de l'Oise by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-16 23:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Golden dagoba at Dambulla (Sri Lanka), view from Kandy Rd
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-17 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Bractechlamys vexillum (Distant scallop), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-17 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Stele with female representation - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-17 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Antonin Carlès by Armand Berton - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-17 08:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Bell tower of Saint-Sulpice Church in Marcq-en-Ostrevent – Nord – France
Used in:
wikidata
Reason:
Its bell tower is the only one in the region without a spire. The porch dates from after the 15th century. The rest of the building was rebuilt between 1818 and 1830. It is one of the few churches in the district to have escaped destruction during the fighting in 1918. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-17 10:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Acrocephalus dumetorum (Blyth's Reed Warbler)

@GRDN711 and Charlesjsharp: Since I did not find any existing VI for this specie, I am removing the sub scope. But I would love both of you to agree or disagree for use of view as subscope by discussion so I don't use subscopes which are not accepted by everyone in my future nominations. -- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-17 11:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Mucalinda in Dambulla, in Dambulla cave temple (Sri Lanka)
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-16 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Tenovo
Reason:
I think this is the most representative image of this village -- Ehrlich91 (talk)

 Comment Overall, image is a too dark. Suggest using a better scope - "Village of Tenovo, Northern Macedonia - aerial view". You need to include a scope-link to a category where this image can be found. Suggest you create a sub-category called "Aerial views of Tenova" under parent category "Tenova" and place this and similar aerial images in it. Use that as the scope-link category. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-16 19:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Čelopek
Reason:
I think this is the most representative image of this village. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-17 19:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Lepidocolaptes angustirostris (Narrow-billed woodcreeper) showing chest feathers
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-17 19:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Serpophaga subcristata (White-crested tyrannulet)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-17 19:46 (UTC)
Scope:
22 Wolności Square in Puck, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-17 19:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Tarnowskie Góry, front view
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-17 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Jarnołtówek, front view
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-12-18 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Inflorescences of a Tanacetum vulgare Tansy.

 Comment I think you mean "Inflorescences", not "Flowers" --Llez (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 :*✓ Done, thank you for your advice.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 ::* Support There are a lot of pictures in the category, but I think this one in combination with the bokeh is the best. --Llez (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-18 06:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Solecurtus sulcatus, right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Junior Jumper (talk) on 2025-12-18 06:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of Unity
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Деан Лазаревски (talk) on 2025-12-16 19:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Selce, Štip
Reason:
I think this is the most representative image of the village. -- Деан Лазаревски (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Деан Лазаревски (talk) on 2025-12-16 19:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Sudiḱ
Reason:
I think this is the most representative image of this village. -- Деан Лазаревски (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-18 08:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Façade of the Italian-style theatre in Douai (Historic Monument) – Nord – France
Used in:
wikidata
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-18 08:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Sitta himalayensis (White-tailed Nuthatch) - with food.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-18 12:21 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Toplički Church
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the monastery church. The monastery is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-18 12:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Nebojani)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-18 12:27 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Mrzen Oraovec)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church, which is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of SS. Peter and Paul in Katowice, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Pro-cathedral between 1922–1925. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-18 12:49 (UTC)
Scope:
19 Poniatowskiego Street in Katowice, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Villa was designed and belonged to Tadeusz Michejda, important Polish architect. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-18 12:51 (UTC)
Scope:
4 Kasprowicza Square in Katowice, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Historic shopping mall. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Nothura maculosa (Spotted nothura)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Patagioenas maculosa (Spot-winged pigeon)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 14:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Troglodytes musculus (Southern house wren)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-18 17:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Sleeping Buddha in Dambulla cave temple, (Sri Lanka)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-18 19:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel de ville d'Aniche - Nord - France
Used in:

wikidata

wikidata
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]
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"