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
60,999 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,046 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,388 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,565 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Dzveniache - School (view from the north)

 Oppose @Nikride: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (COM:VIS), is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary school building in small Ukrainian village. Second thing: no category for that scope added/created. --Gower (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:58 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Michael's Church in Dzveniache (view from the north)

 Comment The linked CAT in the scope is too broad. The Church deserves its own Category. --Tagooty (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagooty: ✓ Done --Nikride (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Nikride: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope." (COM:VIS), Is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary modern church in small Ukrainian village. Importance not not shown in any way. --Gower (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
heylenny (talk/edits) on 2025-11-13 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Orla do Guaíba, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Reason:
The best "sunset of Orla do Guaíba" image in scope, IMHO. -- heylenny (talk/edits)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Dysmachus trigonus male on Dianthus caryophyllus.
I don't think the scope is too narrow. It is a common practice on VI to include the specific name of a tree or plant that a bird or an insect is sitting on (recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). This means that there can be several different VI scopes for each different plant or tree a bird or insects is sitting on. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Giles Laurent: , I believe that common practice is wrong and pointless, look here: Commons:Valued_image_scope/en#Animals. sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of behaviour – not specific background. Fly can sit on every species in its environment so we should create 1000-2000 scopes for it? --Gower (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current practice makes sense because the plant or tree is a valuable information about the animal's environment, which is also a reflector of the behavior of the animal/insect that will prefer some environments to others. So to me this is perfectly fine with the rules -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @George Chernilevsky: of course that animals have their feeding plants etc. but not always. I also photograph insects and it varies, sometimes certain plants have significance, and sometimes it's a coincidence. --Gower (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good image but regretfully  Oppose based on scope. The inclusion of second plant species with this insect species is overly descriptive and narrow. This insect feeds on other insects and can be found on a number of different plants, not specifically this plant species. Also, common name of "fan-bristled robberfly" should be included. Suggest you consider a better scope for further consideration. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your own interpretation of VI rules is inaccurate in my opinion and is contrary to the current practice on VI which allows to add a plant species alongside a bird/insect species. Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, etc.
I therefore see no problem with the current scope which is perfectly in line with the current practice on VI. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Best in Scope --Pierre André (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giles Laurent: A lot of examples, but... What if I open a window in my apartment and an insect flies in and lands on some exotic potted cultivar that it wouldn't normally encounter in its natural habitat? Would such a scope also be justified? We're opening the door to a vast number of VIs. It is right idea? --Gower (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2025
  • @Gower: This isn't a right idea; it's a fundamental aspect of life. Life arises from "chance and necessity." There is indeed an element of chance, but for insects, this element is minimal. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean "it came by chance." I've been fighting for a long time to dispel this idea and for people to understand the intricate relationship between the two.(UTC)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Small sarcophagus - 4th-5th century AD Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Scopula immorata ventral view

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Dibrivka (Tetiiv Hromada) - Agrarian Lyceum (view from the west)

 Comment @Nikride: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (COM:VIS), is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary school building in small Ukrainian village. Second thing: no category for that scope added/created. --Gower (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Dibrivka (Tetiiv Hromada) - Village council (view from the west)

 Comment @Nikride: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (COM:VIS), is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary building in small Ukrainian village. Second thing: no category for that scope added/created. --Gower (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-14 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
potrait of Cisticola juncidis (Zitting Cisticola)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-16 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Brunnera macrophylla 'Jack Frost' in Garden of the Museum of the Americas in Auch
However, with the addition of the location, I agree with Gower that the scope is too narrow. This plant cultivar can be grown in many other places and is not limited to this specific museum garden.
IMO, a wider scope similar to “Brunnera macrophylla, Jack Frost cultivar - leaf”, would be more effective for the VI nomination of your image. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose with regret, but extremely narrow scope, criterion 2, sorry @Archaeodontosaurus: I fully agree that there are fewer problems for the nominator (and greater chance for promotion), but what does it make sense for our project? Does this particular plant species deserve a scope relating to a specific garden in a specific city? I don't think so. That sub-scope does not contribute anything to the presentation of such species as flower, fruit, seed, leaves. "scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository" (COM:VICR) --Gower (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Gower: Your remarks are unfounded. They only serve to perpetuate a negative atmosphere in VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Sorry to hear that, but my remarks are founded on COM:VISC. For me, it's sad to have to come up with scopes that aren't very useful for the project just to get a VI because they wouldn't qualify for a more general scope. VI should serve the project nd not be a game of labeling photos. --Gower (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-16 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of a Young Girl by Eugène-Antoine Aizelin- Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-16 08:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Park in Kashperivka

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-16 10:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Palace in Brynek (exterior)
Reason:
Important Polish palace (more than local interest), cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-16 11:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Holy Spirit Church in Bytom (exterior)
Reason:
Important church from 17th century, cultural heritage monument in Poland. Rare example of polygonal shaped church as of Poland. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-16 11:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Prunella modularis
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-16 12:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Prunella modularis
If you search Commons on “Prunella modularis” AND “Valued image”, you will find there already is a VI rating for the species “Prunella modularis (Dunnock)”. To offer yours as better requires MVR. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-16 12:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Lac de Bab Louta, Taza Province - view of central section from east-northeast
Used in:
wikidata:Q136804360
Reason:
This image shows more of the reservoir, including parts hidden by hills (see notes on the image). -- Tagooty (talk)

 Best in Scope and beautiful too--Gower (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-16 19:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Casa da Moeda (Lisbon)

 Best in Scope and good light --Gower (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Lucina pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Lucine), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Reliquaire de St Léotade - Grand Chœur de la cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Acroterion 1st century AD. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Bottle with zoomorphic decorated neck. Lambayeque (culture) - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-17 08:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Operophtera brumata, female, lateral view
Reason:
Scope is limited to female due to extreme sexual dimorphism. Lateral view highlights specific anatomical features (reduced wings, structure of abdomen). So far, we have only two other photos of female lateral view of this species: 1 and 2 -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-17 08:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Kashperivka (Bila Tserkva Raion) - view from the northwest

 Question @Nikride: , what is beyond local interest in this building? (COM:VIS) It is cultural heritage monument of Ukraine or something like that, local attraction? --Gower (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gower: Former Zmyhrovskyi manor house (19th century) --Nikride (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikride: thanks for your answer, I understand. But has the importance of the object been somehow perceived by authorities of historians? Is it under conservator's protection or is it a tourist attraction or is it architecturally distinctive? --Gower (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower: Officially, this building is not a monument and is private property. But it's definitely more than just local interest. https://ukrainaincognita.com/kyivska-oblast/tetiivskyi-raion/kashperivka/kashperivka-palats-nepalats-ta-tserkva-netserkva https://obukhiv.info/news/palatc-zmigrovskogo-na-kiivshchini-shcho-bulo-te-zagulo/ https://www.pslava.info/KashperivkaS_Palace,369404.html --Nikride (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-17 09:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Metellina merianae (male), lateral view
Reason:
So far only fully lateral view of male representative of this species on Commons. Displays its species characteristics, especially male pedipalp with bulbus. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-17 22:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestroides (Campo flicker) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-17 22:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestroides (Campo flicker) female

 Comment @Charlesjsharp: great photo, but the tail is not fully visible, maybe that yours File:Campo flicker (Colaptes campestris) female.JPG (current VI) or File:Colaptes campestris 3.jpg (if it's female) would be better? What do you think? --Gower (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-17 22:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestroides (Campo flicker) female in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Collège Sainte-Marie - Impasse Jérôme Cuzin à Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Three Shaouabtis - 3rd intermediate period - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Youth by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrogastra rolphii, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-18 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of St. Paul in Ruda Śląska, facade
Reason:
Church has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. Represents very unusual ornamentation, by famous architect Johannes Franziskus Klomp. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-18 11:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Watermill in Dashiv - view from the southwest
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
TheNuggeteer (talk) on 2025-11-18 12:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Philippines AirAsia Puregold Livery
Reason:
Best image of the AirAsia Puregold Livery (only other image is File:RP-C8978 (36296170080).jpg, this is better) -- TheNuggeteer (talk)
  • My image shows the livery design more clearly as well as the airplane landing in an international airport. I think their sharpness and quality are on par, but I think this one is better encyclopedically. TheNuggeteer (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
TheNuggeteer (talk) on 2025-11-18 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
DoubleDragon Plaza Giant Statues
Reason:
Only image about the scope in Commons; the scope is discussed in numerous news articles. -- TheNuggeteer (talk)

 Question Is this statue copyrighted?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-18 18:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Holy Trinity church in Kochłowice, facade
Reason:
Church has cultural heritage monument in Poland status and was designed by famous architect Ludwig Schneider. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-18 19:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Morskie Oko
Reason:
Morskie Oko is a major tourist attraction in Poland and the second-largest lake in the Tatra Mountains, the highest Polish mountains. That image (author: Tomasz O.) isn't perfect (small resolution), but as only one on Commons shows real shape of that lake, because photo was taken from mountain pass over the lake (and sadly it's probably only photo from that pass, also big tourist attraction). Another good picture is that one, but from different perspective: File:Panorama-Morskiego-Oka.jpg. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-19 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison diocésaine d'Auch

 Best in Scope, if you have time it would be perfect to create Wikidata item too (no relation to VIC). --Gower (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-19 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Les chiens savants by Louis Joseph Watteau- 'Musée des Amériques' - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-19 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Male head 1st century AD. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-19
Scope:
Actias parasinensis female,dorsal

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-11-19 08:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Transit Connect (3rd generation) - left rear view
Used in:
de:Ford Transit Connect

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-11-19 09:06 (UTC)
Scope:
BMW i5 eDrive40 - left rear view
Used in:
de:Fahrzeugheck

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-19 09:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Pohreby - view from the east
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2025-11-19 11:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Herrnhuter Straße 5 (Leipzig)
Used in:
wikidata
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-19 11:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Rysy
Reason:
Rysy is the highest peak of Poland, its name comes from the deep diagonal furrow clearly visible in the photo. The photo is low-resolution (author: Andrzej Makarczuk), but it is still valuable and, in my opinion, best represents this mountain on Commons. -- Gower (talk)

 Question Hi Gower what do you think of this one? I think it is better. The photo you are suggesting was taken by Andrzej Makarczuk, and they don't seem to be active on Commons. Regards --Pierre André (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: thank you very much for your proposal. Your suggested photo isn't bad, but imho it's too bright, not very sharp, and doesn't show the furrow. Maybe I should change the scope to: Rysy, the top of the mountain? --Gower (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Best regards--Pierre André (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-19
Scope:
Agrisius albafuliginosus female,dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-19
Scope:
Actias parasinensis male,dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-19 17:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Myiopsitta monachus (Monk parakeet)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-19 17:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Myiopsitta monachus monachus (Monk parakeet) in flight with nesting material

 Support very good and probably the only one photo in the scope --Gower (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-19 17:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Myiopsitta monachus monachus (Monk parakeets) flock in flight

 Support very, very good and probably the only one photo in the scope --Gower (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-19 17:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of the Wawel Castle, view from the East
Reason:
Wawel is the royal Polish residence, probably the most important castle in Poland. Thanks to the leafless trees, the castle's structure is clearly visible. Photo also shows Baszta Sandomierska tower on the left, which is not visible on every picture at that point of view. Autor: Lestat (Jan Mehlich). -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-19 18:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Assumption church in Bytom, exterior
Reason:
The most valuable historic church in Bytom, dating back to the Middle Ages. The oldest temple in the city. A view with trees without leaves allows you to see more windows and the roofline. That one: File:Bytom Assumption church 2022.jpg, also by me it's maybe more aesthetic, but the trees cover a lot. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-19 23:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Rounded facade of the Carlton Hotel (Lille), view towards Rue Faidherbe.
@Gower: , @Archaeodontosaurus: I have corrected the scope category Category:Rounded facade of the Carlton Hotel (Lille). This specifies that the photo shows a view from Rue Faidherbe. --Pierre André (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support in the new scope (old was: seen from Place du Théâtre) it's ok --Gower (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Iotaphora iridicolor, dorsal

 Support good and only one in scope --Gower (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-20 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase representing an arm - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-20 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Female statue draped in a stola - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-20 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Azorinus chamasolen, left valve

 Best in Scope as always, nice job --Gower (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2025-11-20 07:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Wurzner Straße (Leipzig)
Used in:
wikidata

 Best in Scope good angle of view for a street photo, useful and used --Gower (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:04 (UTC)
Scope:
1877 paintings by Camille Pissarro
Used in:
wikidata

 Comment @JackyM59: scope (it was: Paintings and pictorial arts) is extremely wide and covers hundreds of thousands works of art. What makes this image the best choice for the scope? Pissarro is of course fine painter, but I'm not convinced. --Gower (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Ostearius melanopygius cocoon
Reason:
The only photo of cocoons of this species on Commons. The photo is not perfect (its location did not allow taking a photo from a different perspective), but it probably shows well the shape and structure of these cocoons and their arrangement in relation to each other. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrosaccus robiniella, lateral view of imago
Reason:
One of two photos on Commons (the second one is worse, also by me: link) showing the imago of this taxon in lateral view. The quality and detail are not high, but I think that the key details and specificity of the pattern are visible. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Calotes maria - Khasi Hills Forest Lizard

pity that tail is cut but anyway  Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Perissogomphus stevensi - female dorsal

 Support good and only one photo of this species --Gower (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Anisogomphus caudalis (Black-tailed Longleg),male dorsal

 Support good and the only one photo in the scope --Gower (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Scalmogomphus bistrigatus (Toothed Pincertail)- female

 Support good and only one photo of this species --Gower (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Orolestes selysi - lateral view

 Support good and only one photo of this species --Gower (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Monoceromyia tredecimpunctata - dorsal

 Support good and only one photo of this species --Gower (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-20
Scope:
Aristocypha hilaryae - male

 Support good and only one photo of this species --Gower (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 18:55 (UTC)
Scope:
CINiBA (The Scientific Information Centre and Academic Library), exterior
Reason:
Modern academic library building, its design that was awarded and gained attention. My photo imho shows characteristic shape of that building. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-21 04:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Yacoub el Mansour Dam, Taza province, Morocco - view from upstream
Used in:
wikidata:Q136850570
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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)

 Best in Scope, of course different angle of view but still better --Gower (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (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]
  •  Best in Scope per Franz van Duns--Gower (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:15, 19 November 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 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (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 05:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Vercingétorix in Alise Sainte-Reine, France.

[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"