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]
candidate list Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
62,650 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,486 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,547 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,617 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-27 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Ardea alba (Great egret), head, hitting the water

 Comment The 90-deg rotation makes for a stunning FP. For VI, I think it is better to have the water surface horizontal. --Tagooty (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby, it's still the only picture of the bird hitting the water surface so it's still the best in scope. And it's also still valuable and makes sense rotated as it gives the bird's perspective. While I would understand the need for a picture of the whole body of the bird to be rotated, this one is a crop of just the head and it's reflection and to me the rotation makes sense which such head crop as it gives the bird's perspective. So I respectfully hope that you'll change your mind -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As stated above. I will support if the natural orientation is uploaded and offered as VIC. --Tagooty (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-27 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Pyrocephalus rubinus (Scarlet flycatcher), male, full ventral view
This one is a different perspective with a full frontal view of the chest feathers. It allows to see how the bird is completely red when viewed from the front. There are VIs for every angle of a church (north, east, west, south, north-east, north west, south-east and south-west view) as there are for birds VIs for lateral, ventral and rear view as they showcase different feathers of the bird that are valuable informations -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Having a ventral VI is fine in general. In this particular case, there are already 2 VIs of male of the species. One of these shows about 75% of the breadth and 100% of the length of the ventral view. As birds have lateral symmetry, the 75% of the breadth gives complete information about the ventral view.
    One solution that I would support is to change the scope of File:095 Scarlet Flycatcher in Encontro das Águas State Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg to include the ventral view. This will also resolve the problem of 2 VIs for the same scope.
    For a simple church with lateral symmetry, I would oppose 8 VIs -- two or three would suffice. For a complex church such as the Basilica di San Francesco (Assisi), there could be more than 8 VI scopes. --Tagooty (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the other image is not a full ventral view. It is only on a full ventral view that you have a 100% red view of the chest and it is a valuable perspective of the bird -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-01 23:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Greek cemetery (Rabrovo), military cemetery from World War I
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this cemetery from World War I. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment No tombs visible, which is strange for a cemetery. I think the n°3 of your series is more representative of this interesting place, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jebulon: I've replaced the nominated picture with the one where the tombs are visible.

--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
ROCKY (talk) on 2026-03-03 07:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Close-up photographs of rice "Shobraj"
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-03 23:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Cariama cristata (Red-legged seriema), ventral view
@Tagooty, the first image you linked is of very low quality (very blurry) and extremely bad point of view hiding the eyes. The present image is of much much higher quality (six times more pixels!!) and of infinitely better point of view perfectly showing the eyes of the bird. The other image you linked is a side view that shows 0 ventral feathers and is therefore of a completely different scope. Moreover it has a very bad background contrast with the subject. Therefore there is no doubt to me that the present image is the best in scope and I sincerely hope that you will change your mind -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the nom image is largely not a ventral view and hence does not qualify for the scope. In the discussion of the Scarlet flycatcher ventral view, you had opined that the VIC for ventral view must have 100% view of the chest -- the nom image shows much less than 100%. Note that for VI, the image has only to look good at review size, it need not be high quality. IMO we can wait for a better ventral image to be uploaded. --Tagooty (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagooty, I never said that a ventral view could only be a 100% frontal view of the chest (which would rarely be the case because you're most of the time at like 80%, 90% for example). If you look correctly I said that the Scarlet flycatcher picture was a full ventral view, which clearly indicates that there can be ventral views that are full frontal and others that are not. I also said that for the Scarlet flycatcher a full ventral view was a very valuable view because it is only in that configuration that you have a full bright red chest. Male scarlet flycatchers are brilliantly red primarily to attract mates, serving as a sexual signal of health and vitality. The bright, conspicuous color helps males defend their breeding territory against rivals. Also, while males are bright red, females and young birds have subdued colors, providing necessary camouflage while nesting. So this bright red color really plays a role for that species and having a full frontal view of the red chest is very valuable. As for the Red-legged seriema, there's no particular role for a full ventral view. Finally I'd like to point out that you are opposing the Scarlet flycatcher saying that it doesn't need full ventral view while also opposing this present picture by saying that it needs full ventral view. This looks like bad faith to use contradictory reasons between your two opposes and could seem like you're just each time trying to find a reason to oppose even if it requires to contradict yourself. I honestly hope that this is just a misunderstanding and that you'll reconsider your votes on both pictures. Thank you for your understanding. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification on what you wrote. I have not opposed this nom because it needs a full ventral view - my precise statements are "shows ... only a part of the ventral view" and "is largely not a ventral view". I believe my subjective reviews are consistent. They are certainly made in good faith. I have high regard for your photographic skills and images. My apologies for any misunderstanding I may have unintentionally caused. --Tagooty (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-04 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Massey Ferguson 290 tractor, left side view
Used in:
wikidata:Q98542069
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-04 22:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Udovo, aerial view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-04 23:07 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Theodore of Amasea Church (Dolno Orehovo), external view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-04 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Gruništa), external view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-05 06:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Chamelea gallina var. major (Chicken Venus), right valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-05 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Chamelea gallina var. major (Chicken Venus), left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-05 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Head of Ehecatl, the god of the wind - Aztec culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-05 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
L'escalier monumental - Statue de D'Artagnan, de face, par Fimin Michelet Auch France
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-05 07:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Belfry of Douai , seen from the east - Nord – France
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-05 08:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Circular dish: The fox preaching the geese - Louvre Museum – France
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-03-05 08:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Mary of Help church in Katowice – exterior, view from the northwest
Reason:
Church adapted in 1930 from a 19th-century steel mill hall by Joseph Buchkremer, architect of Aachen Cathedral. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-05 18:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of Montesquieu by Jean-Baptiste de Bay
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. Another candidate is File:Musée d'art et d'archéologie du Périgord - Jean Baptiste Joseph De Bay père - Buste de Montesquieu.jpg -- Jebulon (talk)
  •  Comment This is best in scope for sure (the other one is slightly cropped on the other side), but the scope is too long. I'm not sure if the location of the bust should be included in the scope. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC) @Kiril Simeonovski: thank you. I've narrowed the scope according to your useful comment. There is indeed only one bust of Montesquieu by this sculptor.--Jebulon ( talk) 17:56, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-05 23:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Egretta thula thula (Snowy egret), males in breeding plumage, fighting
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-05 23:33 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Rapeš), external view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-05 23:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Church of the Presentation of the Theotokos (Graešnica), exterior view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 15th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-05 23:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Novo Konjarevo, aerial view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-03-06 05:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Kapelle St. Jakob d. Ältere in Misanenga Northeast side.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-06 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrogastra plicatula ssp. superflua, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-06 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Funeral monument of Michel-Gervais-Robert de Pomeroy.

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-06 07:02 (UTC)
Scope:
'La descente de la croix' par Giovanni Leonardi - Musée du Pays rabastinois

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
IssamBarhoumi (talk) on 2026-03-05 10:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Whirling dervishes
Reason:
I think that this image could be a valued Image because it ilustrates all the ritual of Mevelvi Order and all the members of the ritual are in the scene -- IssamBarhoumi (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-06 23:19 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Furka), exterior view from south-west
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-06 23:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Christ (Brusnik), exterior view from south
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-06 23:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Grdovci, aerial view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-07 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Pseudochama gryphina (Gryphin Jewel Box), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-07 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Initiation mask - Yaka culture Democratic Republic of the Congo - Museum de Toulouse

 Support Strange and beautiful object, best in scope. You should emphazise your nomination in the current "Wiki loves Africa" contest which is about "Rituals", this fits very well ! Question : Why the category "February 2025 in Toulouse" as the picture was uploaded in 2026 ? Anyway, good job ! (as usual !)--Jebulon (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Merci j'ai corrigé * Comment Thanks, I've corrected the typo. I think the image should have been taken in 2025, oh well... I wasn't aware of this contest. Have a good day! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-07 06:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Silver snake ear ornament. Moche Culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-07 09:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Notre-Dame de Cambrai Beguinage , front facade - Nord – France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)

 Comment As the image does not show the whole building, I suggest that "front facade" be added to the scope. Otherwise it is good for VI. --Tagooty (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-07 13:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Tazekka Parc Hotel, Bab Boudir - view from the south
Used in:
wikidata:Q138586820
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-03-07 17:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison des Templiers à Douai
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-03-07 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
87 Markiefki Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Former convent, now hospital, cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-07 22:27 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Mercurius Church (Barešani), bell tower
Reason:
This is the only picture of this 19th-century bell tower, and it looks very representative. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-07 22:30 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Velušina), external view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-07 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Kazandol, aerial view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-08 06:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Pseudochama gryphina (Gryphin Jewel Box), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-08 08:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Funeral mask in Tumbaga 83.02.001 - Lambayeque (culture) - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-08 08:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Photinia serratifolia Immature inflorescences
  •  Best in Scope, but maybe scope category could be changed to

Category:Photinia serratifolia inflorescences? --Gower (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment You're asking the right questions. There's the bud, whose appearance at the beginning is very close to the immature inflorescence, and finally: the inflorescence, which is very different from the two. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-08 10:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Large odalisque with bayadère breeches, Lithograph by Henri Matisse
Reason:
 Support A lot of bayadères by Matisse exists, but no other cadidate in the scope--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC) -- JackyM59 (talk)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-08 13:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Former general hospital of Cambrai, exterior seen from the north
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-03-08 15:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of SS. Peter and Paul in Piekary Śląskie – exterior, view from the south
Reason:
Church designed by Ludwig Schneider, cultural heritage monument with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-08 16:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Ritual mask of Ivory Coast
Reason:
From the Musée d'Art et d'Archéologie du Périgord. Geocoded. Beautiful by itself, best in scope IMO -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-08 17:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Jeune chasseur by Jacques-Léonard Maillet
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. See other files: File:Musée d'art et d'archéologie du Périgord - Jacques-Léonard Maillet - Le jeune chasseur exposé dans le cloître.jpg et File:Musée d'art et d'archéologie du Périgord - Jacques-Léonard Maillet - Le jeune chasseur.jpg -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-08 17:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Sts. Peter and Paul Church (Bistrica), external view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-08 18:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Sts. Peter and Paul Church (Bistrica), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior of this monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-08 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Bistrica (Veles), aerial view from south
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment File:Поглед на Бистрица 3.jpg shows almost the same view of the village and fields, but it also shows the distant skyline. To me, this gives a better impression of the mountainous setting of the village. --Tagooty (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-03-08 20:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Sainte-Eulalie de Sainte-Eulalie-de-Cernon
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-09 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
An allegory of America adorned and dressed in feathers - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Oppose I know very well how taking pictures in a museum is difficult, but he overall bad quality of the subject (strong blur, strong noise, feathers on the head overexposed...) does not fit with the VI criteria IMO. Let see what the others say.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-09 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Calibrachoa 'Cabaret Purple' - polinisation by Bombus pascuorum

 Oppose Good image of this Calibrachoa varietal. Unfortunately, with two scientific names, scope is too narrow, overly descriptive and confusing. Suggest using a simpler, generic scope such as "Calibrachoa 'Cabaret Purple' - pollination by insect". The insect species identification is good information to know and could be included in image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-09 09:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Former military hospital of the Château de Selles de Cambrai , seen from the South-West
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A S M Jobaer (talk) on 2026-03-09 11:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Tajhat Palace , seen from the front - Rangpur – Bangladesh
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-09 20:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Veraison of olives, in Greece
Reason:
It is the very moment to harvest olives for oil in Greece, when the fruit are just half red and half green. Best in scope IMO -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

I have added the following to the VI Nomination ProcedureːPlease ensure you have the FastCCI gadget enabled. You should use this to identify existing VIs with similar scopes. Note that if an image shows up as FP or QI it may also be a Valued Image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Closed valued image candidates

[edit]


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]
   
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"