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
62,443 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,298 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,528 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,617 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-12 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Christ's Resurrection (Dedebalci), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is famous for its highly decorated architecture. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-14 00:28 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Kumaničevo), exterior view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-14 00:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Puzderci, view from south
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. @Tagooty: I've re-nominated the picture as the previous nomination was closed shortly after you had left your comment. I've added the direction in the scope. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-14 11:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Zizeeria knysna (African grass blue) underside; on Arnica

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this scope please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-14 11:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Heteropsis narcissus narcissus underside
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-14 14:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Cape fur seal), jumping out of the water
The whole face is in focus, eyes, ears and whiskers included, as it should be with wildlife photography, so this picture is perfectly fine. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment True - you have one key element in focus - the whiskers, but the rest of the face and body is not. Overall, the image just looks too blurry. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you're wrong, the eyes and ears are also in focus in the image -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-15 07:10 (UTC)
Scope:
26 Piastowska Street in Prudnik, exterior
Reason:
Former Pinkus family villa, seat of private library, now school building; cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-15 07:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Jewish cemetery in Głogówek
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument in Poland with its own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-15 07:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Clock tower of IV Lyceum in Bytom
Reason:
One of the most distinctive architectural features and symbols of the city of Bytom. A part of the cultural heritage monument in Poland with its own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-15 09:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Tapes platyptycha, left valve

 Support Useful and used --Pierre André (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-15 12:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Coeliades forestan forestan (Striped policeman) underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-15 12:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Megisba malaya sikkima (Malayan) underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-15 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Lethe confusa apara (Banded treebrown) underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-15 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus (Cape fur seal), heads, juveniles fighting
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-15 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Pelecanus onocrotalus (Great white pelican) in flight, side view showing wing upperside
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-15 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Pycnonotus nigricans nigricans (African red-eyed bulbul), ventral view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-15 17:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Codakia orbicularis (American Tiger Lucina), left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-02-15 22:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Anacréon, Bacchus et l’Amour 1848 (close-up) by Jean-Léon Gérôme, Musée Louvre-Lens, Lens
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-15 23:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Theotokos (Alakince), facade
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this medieval church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-15 23:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Dormition of the Theotokos Church (Nemanjica), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th century. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-15 23:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Trstenik, Sveti Nikole, village pump
Reason:
This is the only picture of this village pump. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-02-16 05:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Baselgia catolica Sogn Gieri (Surcuolm) Pulpit.
Reason:
This is an image of a cultural property of regional significance in Switzerland with KGS number
10815
-- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk)

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-16 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Gisant d'Antoine de Salinis - Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-16 06:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiriqui pottery - Statuette of a man - Chiriqui Culture Costa Rica - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-16 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Tapes literatus (Lettered Venus), right valve
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-02-16 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Paracelsus by Peter Paul Rubens - Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-16 12:45 (UTC)
Scope:
San Silvestro in Capite (Rome), facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-16 12:48 (UTC)
Scope:
San Silvestro in Capite (Rome) - Bell tower

Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-16 15:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Heliocypha biforata female
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-16 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Agriocnemis pygmaea (Pygmy dartlet) female red form
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-16 15:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Agriocnemis pygmaea (Pygmy dartlet) mature female red form
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-16 18:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Dorothy church in Będzin, interior, view towards the main altar
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 17th century with own article, important place for Upper Silesia region. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-16 19:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Phacochoerus africanus sundevallii (Southern warthog), young adult male, frontal view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-16 19:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Cynictis penicillata bradfieldi (Yellow mongoose), frontal view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-16 19:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Geosciurus inauris (Cape ground squirrel), side view, looking out of its burrow
  •  Support Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose "looking out of its burrow" is excessive description taken from the image that makes the scope too narrow. It is not behavior uniquely characteristic of this species but would apply to any burrow animal.
Also, the scope-category showing just 3 images for comparison under Category:Geosciurus inauris needs improvement. As noted in Wikipedia – “Xerus inauris and Geosciurus inauris refer to the same species, the Cape ground squirrel. The name "Geosciurus inauris" is a subgenus classification, while "Xerus inauris" is the specific name for this species. Both names describe the same ground squirrel found in southern Africa.” There should be at least 100 images of this species to compare to. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711 this is a ground squirrel and not a tree squirrel. This species lives in burrows on the ground and this is one of them. Having only part of their body out the burrow to inspect if the area is safe is a very typical behavior of this species that is extremely valuable as a scope. I used the same binomial species name as used in the Wikipedia article. If you look the images in Xerud inauris, the present still is the best representation of the scope -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
ArildV (talk) on 2026-02-16 20:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Semla
Reason:
High resolution focus stack image of a tradional version. No geolocation since the photo was taken in my home. -- ArildV (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-16 22:46 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Knežje), facade
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the facade of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-16 22:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Krušica), exterior view from south
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 2026-02-16 22:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Krušica), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior of this 19th-century monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-02-17 05:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Cluster Auricularia auricula-judae on an old beech tree at the base of a previously cut branch
  •  Support Useful and used -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose @Famberhorst - there are already 2 existing VIs for this species, both taken by you. This nomination is the 3rd.
    It’s not the quality of the images – all are excellent.
    The addition of "on an old beech tree at the base of a previously cut branch" is just excessive description that makes the scope too narrow for another VI nomination of this same fungi species. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-17 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Tapes literatus (Lettered Venus), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-17 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiriqui pottery - Zoomorphic metata with feline decoration - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-17 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
'Centaure à la massue' par Giovanni Leonardi - Musée du Pays rabastinois
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-02-17 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Mayan mushroom stones - Musée du Quai Branly - Paris
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2026-02-17 13:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of St. Ulrich (Lavant) − altars
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-17 20:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Geosciurus inauris (Cape ground squirrel) on a tree, frontal view
@GRDN711 this is a ground squirrel and not a tree squirrel (they are different species). It is an interesting behavior to have a ground squirrel stand on a tree because ground squirrels are supposed to live on the ground and in burrows in the ground. The image you linked is a simple ground squirrel standing on the ground and not a ground squirrel perched on a tree. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Totally understand the difference between a ground squirrel and a tree squirrel. Adding the phrase "on a tree" adds excessive description that is not characteristic of the species but is intended to make your image appear more valuable than it is. If the scope becomes, "Geosciurus inauris (Cape ground squirrel), frontal view", the alternative example I gave is much better and more valuable at representing the species. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you're comparing this image to another one of a completely different scope, which doesn't make sense. The present scope is a very interesting and valuable behavior for the species. Your claim on the behavior being not characteristic of the species is not only irrelevant but moreover wrong. Ground squirrels can occasionally climb trees primarily for safety to escape predators or for surveillance of the area. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Gower -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-17 20:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Suricata suricatta suricatta (Meerkat) standing, side view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-17 20:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceratotherium simum (White rhinoceros) male with facial battle injuries, side view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-17 22:59 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Bigor Dolenci), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. The previous nomination can be found here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-17 23:03 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nedela Church (Dvorci), exterior view from south
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 2026-02-17 23:14 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Budimirci), exterior view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-02-18 05:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Baselgia catolica Sogn Gieri (Surcuolm) Main altar.
Reason:
This is an image of a cultural property of regional significance in Switzerland with KGS number
10815
-- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-18 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Codex Drawing - Paza and Ytzquintepec - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-18 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Sedum adolphi Raym.-Hamet - inflorescence
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-18 06:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Meretrix meretrix, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-18 07:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthodox church in Sosnowiec, exterior
Reason:
One of the few Orthodox churches in Upper Silesia, cultural heritage monument from 1889. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-18 07:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Dom Handlowy Zenit, exterior
Reason:
Mall from People Republic of Poland period designed by important architects with own article. -- Gower (talk)
  •  Best in Scope and used
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-18 18:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Sosnowiec Cathedral, view towards the organ loft
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument, main church of big city. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-17 23:18 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Budimirci), bell tower
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century bell tower. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-18 20:57 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Miletkovo), exterior 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 Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-18 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Gradešnica), exterior 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:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-18 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceratotherium simum (White rhinoceros) mother head and her newborn baby
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-18 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Struthio camelus australis (South African ostrich) immature spreading wings, frontal view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-18 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Equus quagga burchellii (Burchell's zebra) hair patterns close-up
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-18 22:51 (UTC)
Scope:
86 rue Georges Clémenceau (Cahors)
Reason:
Protected in plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur (PSMV) of Cahors : [1] (see 86 rue Georges Clémenceau in Cahors).
Note for reviewers: The PSMV (Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur) is a high-level urban protection status in France. Unlike a simple "listed building," it covers an entire historic district where every building is surveyed and protected by law. It is the French equivalent of a comprehensive Conservation Area. The linked PDF document is the official legal inventory proving the architectural value of this specific building. -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)

Previous reviews

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-19 23:03 (UTC)
Scope:
1 place de la Libération (Cahors)
Reason:
Protected in plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur (PSMV) of Cahors : [2] (see 1 place de la Libération in Cahors).
Note for reviewers: The PSMV (Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur) is a high-level urban protection status in France. Unlike a simple "listed building," it covers an entire historic district where every building is surveyed and protected by law. It is the French equivalent of a comprehensive Conservation Area. The linked PDF document is the official legal inventory proving the architectural value of this specific building. -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)

Previous reviews

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-18 23:14 (UTC)
Scope:
168 rue Georges Clémenceau (Cahors)
Reason:
Protected in plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur (PSMV) of Cahors : [3] (see 168 rue Georges Clemenceau in Cahors).
Note for reviewers: The PSMV (Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur) is a high-level urban protection status in France. Unlike a simple "listed building," it covers an entire historic district where every building is surveyed and protected by law. It is the French equivalent of a comprehensive Conservation Area. The linked PDF document is the official legal inventory proving the architectural value of this specific building. -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-18 23:18 (UTC)
Scope:
2 place de la Libération (Cahors)
Reason:
Protected in plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur (PSMV) of Cahors : [4] (see 2 place de la Libération in Cahors).
Note for reviewers: The PSMV (Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur) is a high-level urban protection status in France. Unlike a simple "listed building," it covers an entire historic district where every building is surveyed and protected by law. It is the French equivalent of a comprehensive Conservation Area. The linked PDF document is the official legal inventory proving the architectural value of this specific building. -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-18 23:35 (UTC)
Scope:
28 quai Ségur d'Aguesseau (Cahors)
Reason:
Protected in plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur (PSMV) of Cahors : [5] (see 28 quai Ségur d'Aguesseau in Cahors).
Note for reviewers: The PSMV (Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur) is a high-level urban protection status in France. Unlike a simple "listed building," it covers an entire historic district where every building is surveyed and protected by law. It is the French equivalent of a comprehensive Conservation Area. The linked PDF document is the official legal inventory proving the architectural value of this specific building. -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-19 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Madeleine district, a view from the Berbie Palace in Albi
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-19 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Stirrup-handled ceramic depicting a warrior's helmet. - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-19 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Meretrix meretrix, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-19 11:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Brachydiplax farinosa male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-02-19 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Mosaic depicting a feminine personification - Musée du Louvre - Paris
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-02-19 18:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Bartholomew Altarpiece
Reason:
The only view in Commons of the whole altar piece. Quality acceptable, caption and description complete. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-02-19 20:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Irmscher GT, left front view
Used in:
de:Irmscher Automobilbau
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-19 20:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (African bush elephant) head skin close-up
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-19 20:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (Desert-adapted elephants) adults cuddling
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-19 20:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Antidorcas marsupialis hofmeyri (Springbok) males fighting
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-20 00:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Dormition of the Theotokos Church (Obršani), exterior view from west
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 2026-02-20 00:42 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Aldanci), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-20 00:48 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Birino), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Question This photo is the best in the Scope but this church does not seem to have any particularities. In my area all the churches are at least from the 19th century. I only offer those listed as historical monuments or those which have an architectural particularity. I just reread the application criteria without finding a precise answer. Could anyone give some advice? THANKS -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-20 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiriqui pottery - Zoomorphic vase with neck D94.1.9 Chiriqui Culture Costa Rica - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-20 06:19 (UTC)
Scope:
'Jupiter métamorphosé en taureau enlève Europe par Giovanni Leonardi

Europe is OK, but Europa is probably better. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-02-20 10:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Vénus et l'Amour by Rembrandt - Musée du Louvre – Paris
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-02-20 14:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Gustav-Adolf-Kirche Leoben, Southwest view
Reason:
I think this image is best in scope. The church is a cultural heritage monument in Austria. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-02-20 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Roseggerstraße 17, Leoben, South Facade
Reason:
IMO this image is best in scope. The building is a cultural heritage monument in Austria. -- Aciarium (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"