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
62,028 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,951 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,475 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,602 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Zrze)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Earth605 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Prionochilus maculatus (Yellow-breasted flowerpecker) showing orange crown
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-11 21:09 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Malo Crsko), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church, which is famous for its closed narthex and bell tower that are appended to the main church building. The previous nomination can be found on the following link. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-13 09:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Waltherpark, Bolzano, site prior to demolition and construction
Reason:
The Waltherpark project is one of the most impactful construction projects in the Bolzano city center and has a substantial influence on the cityscape. This image documents what the affected area looked like before the project has been initiated. Multiple of the shown buildings have been demolished for the realization of the shopping center. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthotomus atrogularis (Dark-necked tailorbird) male
Reason:
This is nominated as it shows the male's diagnostic dark neck most clearly -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Prinia flaviventris (Yellow-bellied prinia) not yellow-bellied form

 Oppose Several other good images that show the yellow belly better, eg one, two Oops, signing now. --Tagooty (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gower and Charlesjsharp: It is a good image and deserves QI. For VI, the proposed scope is too vague. A subspecies or a visually-distinct geographic variant are acceptable scopes. From my perusal of ebird.org, I do not find either of these documented. I think we need to wait for ornithologists to decide on ssp. or variants. Based on current info, I maintain my oppose vote; if add'l info is provided, I'll reconsider. --Tagooty (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-14 08:00 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Velušina), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment I prefer this one, which is better File:Црква „Св. Атанасиј“ - Велушина.jpg, by removing the graves on the left. --Pierre André (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: I've replaced with that one. Thanks for suggesting it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-14 16:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Gurdwara Saheb, Hyderabad, view from north-west

 Comment In my opinion, the upper floor presents a problem due to its incline. --Pierre André (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous reviews ... The latest review follows here

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-14 20:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Ferdinand Hanusch-Straße 31, Leoben
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-15 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Paneer pakoda (Tray of unfried Paneer pakodas)

 Comment In my opinion, there are hundreds of Paneer in India. Why would this one be VI? --Pierre André (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-15 05:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Gurdwara Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib, Dhamtan Sahib (view from north)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-15 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
West side of the Römisch-katholische Kirche Maria Himmelfahrt (Ilanz) exterior.
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-01-15 09:20 (UTC)
Scope:
A3 Agadir - Casablanca Motorway, Morocco - view southwards at Imintanoute Service Area
Used in:
en:Casablanca–Agadir expressway
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-15 13:38 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Dolgaec), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 15th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-15 13:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Jesus (Čebren), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which was built in the 15th or 16th centuries. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-16 05:30 (UTC)
Scope:
3 Stations of the Cross no. V, VI, VII. in the Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Falera)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-16 10:41 (UTC)
Scope:
All Saints Old Church (Lešani), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church, which is a national cultural heritage site. It was built in the 15th century on foundations of an older church from the 9th century. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-16 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Velmej), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 13th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-16 10:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Slivnica)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-16 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Gallinago gallinago gallinago (Common snipe) in flight, showing wing upperside
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-16 11:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Gallinago gallinago gallinago (Common snipe) in flight, showing wing underside
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-16 11:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Phalacrocorax fuscicollis (Indian cormorants) immatures
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-16 12:09 (UTC)
Scope:
12 Wolności Square in Katowice, façade
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-16 12:10 (UTC)
Scope:
10A Wolności Square in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-16 14:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Brassica juncea (Indian mustard) flower (Top view of buds and flower with dew drops)

 Comment For the scope: You need the binomial in Latin and in italics, followed by the vernacular name in English (if it exists) in parentheses.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-16 14:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Balushahi (Tray of unfried Balushahis)

 Comment In my opinion, there are hundreds of Makhan Bada in India. Why would this one be VI? --Pierre André (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pierre André Leclercq: yes there are images already but i can only confirm that those are of fried form (ready to eat). but this is of unfried form of dessert.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-16 16:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Oculus of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Cambrai Cathedral – Nord – France
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:

This is the first photograph and publication on Wikipedia of this work, installed in April 2025 (3.78 metres in diameter, installed at the crossing of the transept)

Presentation -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-16 17:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Chauvin Trading Post in Tadoussac, view from Rue du Bord de l'Eau (Quebec)
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
The building was the first permanent French trading post in New France -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-17 01:10 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Kapinovo), exterior
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 2026-01-17 01:12 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Kapinovo), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior 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 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-17 01:16 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Leskovica), exterior
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:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-17 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Mytilus planulatus, right valve
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-17 07:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Dressed statuette with a red face - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-17 07:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Entrance to the Church of Saint-Martin Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds France.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-17 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Jesuit Chapel façade - Cambrai – Nord - France
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-17 09:37 (UTC)
Scope:
JBell tower and carillon Martin Martine of Cambrai Town Hall – Nord - France
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-17 11:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Aethopyga siparaja (Crimson sunbird) male, showing irridescent crown and 'moustache'
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-17 11:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Staphida torqueola (Indochinese yuhina)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-17 11:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Anser anser (Greylag geese) on nest
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-17 20:17 (UTC)
Scope:
57 Warszawska Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument, modernist building with own article in Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-17 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Theotokos (Drenovo), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-17 23:17 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Barbara Church (Rajčica), facade
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 16th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-17 23:47 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Gorno Kosovrasti)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which was built in the 17th or 18th centuries. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-18 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Pre-Columbian metates - Nicoya-Guanacaste - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-18 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Left of Populus alba(white poplar) with Beosus maritimus
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-18 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Siliqua radiata, right valve
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-18 12:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Fulica atra (Eurasian coot) juvenile swimming
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-18 12:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Podiceps cristatus (Great crested grebe) juvenile swimming

 Comment There are sub-CATs for "Podiceps cristatus swimming" and "Podiceps cristatus (juveniles)" which have a large number of images. The scope should be linked to a sub-CAT instead of the species CAT. It will be helpful to make a sub-CAT for "Podiceps cristatus swimming (juveniles)" and link the scope to that. Note: the nom image should also have sub-CAT "Podiceps cristatus swimming". --Tagooty (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-18 12:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Ateles marginatus (White-whiskered spider monkey) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-18 16:25 (UTC)
Scope:
City hall of Bolzano, north facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-18 16:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Landtagsgebäude Bozen, west facade
Reason:
Building of the provincial parliament of South Tyrol -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-18 16:33 (UTC)
Scope:
7 Pocztowa Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-18 16:51 (UTC)
Scope:
6 Bogucicka street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-18 16:54 (UTC)
Scope:
39 Słowackiego Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)

 Oppose In my opinion, the upper floor presents a problem, the right-hand side is missing. This one File:Katowice, kamienica, ul. Słowackiego 39.JPG is much more likely. Unfortunately, the outlook isn't good.--Pierre André (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-01-18 19:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen Polo VI GTI Edition 25 - right rear view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-01-18 19:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Citroen ë-C3 - right front view
Used in:
de:Common Modular Platform
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-01-18 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Superb IV - left rear view
Used in:
de:Škoda Superb IV
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-18 23:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Barešani Monastery, aerial view
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-18 23:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Velušina Monastery, aerial view
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-18 23:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Dragoš Monastery, aerial view
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-19 05:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Right side altar of the Römisch-katholische Kirche Maria Himmelfahrt (Ilanz)
  • Answer: The question is: when is a church less important, and who decides that? In my opinion, old churches are especially important for both the religious community and the culture of the place. Many old churches are disappearing. What remains is important and should be cherished. This side altar is only one of them. There's even a category for it. Category:Valued images of altars--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Interior elements including the various altars, stained glass windows, baptismal fonts, organ, choir loft, etc are routinely accepted in as valid VI scopes. The church is important due to old age, so I think the proposed scope is good. It will be helpful to create a sub-cat with all images of the right side altar so we can see whether this nom is the most valued image. --Tagooty (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-19 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Male statuette Trujillo (Venezuela) Culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-19 06:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Obsidian sacrificial knife (tecpatl) - Aztec culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Reason:
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-19 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Siliqua radiata, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-19 07:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Kino Gloria cinema, façade
Reason:
Not cultural heritage monument but municipal heritage monument, important modernist building, Kino Gloria cinema has its own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-19 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta azarae (Azara's agouti)

 Oppose The nom image is blurry, with grass obscuring the snout. This image is better and used in several projects. --Tagooty (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • True that "used" is less relevant, though many reviewers cite "used" as a reason for support. In this case, the alt image was uploaded in Dec '24, fairly recently. So, the usage is interesting supplementary info, though not a deciding factor. --Tagooty (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-19 11:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Tayassu pecari (White-lipped peccary)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-19 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Saccopteryx bilineata (Greater sac-winged bat)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-20 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Male statuette - Nayarit culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-20 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Nicoya pottery - Polychrome globular vase with a human face - Culture Nicoya-Guanaste - Costa Rica - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-20 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Melia azedarach in india (without leaves and without fruit)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-20 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Paratapes textilis, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-20 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Alfa Romeo Giulia of the Carabinieri, front right view
Reason:
The recent Alfa Romeo Giulia is broadly used as a police vehicle of the Italian Carabinieri. IMO this is the best image in the given scope. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-20 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Alfa Romeo Giulia of the Carabinieri, rear right view
Reason:
The recent Alfa Romeo Giulia is broadly used as a police vehicle of the Italian Carabinieri. IMO this is the best image in the given scope. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-20 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Sporophila caerulescens caerulescens (Double-collared seedeater) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-20 10:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta (Rhesus macaque) and Pygathrix nemaeus (Red-shanked douc langur) hybrid

 Comment It will be helpful and more accurate to create a CAT for this hybrid species. --Tagooty (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-20 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Sympetrum vulgatum (Moustached darter) mating
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-20 11:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Fiat Punto of the Italian Military Police, front left view
Reason:
This and the rear right view are the only images in the given scope, but also in the parent category Military police of Italy - vehicles. The Fiat Punto is a widely used vehicle of the Italian Military Police. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-20 11:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Fiat Punto of the Italian Military Police, rear right view
Reason:
This and the front left view are the only images in the given scope, but also in the parent category Military police of Italy - vehicles. The Fiat Punto is a widely used vehicle of the Italian Military Police. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2026-01-20 12:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Eurypauropodidae
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Afnecors (talk) on 2026-01-20 13:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Nucifraga caryocatactes (northern nutcracker) head
Reason:
best close‑up photo of this bird -- Afnecors (talk)

It is, but scope should have 'head' added. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Karachun (talk) on 2026-01-20 13:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Tapirus

AI-generated or AI-processed? -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Karachun (talk) on 2026-01-20 15:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Entelodon
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-20 20:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Došnica hydroelectric power plant
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this hydroelectric power plant, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-20 20:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Theotokos (Dabnište), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 13th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-20 20:33 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Cer), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-20 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Coracias caudatus (Lilac-breasted roller) taking off, showing wing underside
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-20 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Coracias caudatus (Lilac-breasted roller) landing, showing wing upperside
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-20 21:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Coracias caudatus (Lilac-breasted roller), eating

 Support Useful and used - --GRDN711 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-21 06:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Paratapes textilis, left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-21 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Superb III of the Polizia Stradale, front left view
Used in:
it:Polizia stradale

Sope of the car is good; don't think scopes for company/organisation/police livery justified. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Two scopes of the car ignoring the livery (front quarter; rear quarter). And one scope for the police livery might be Ok, but not for every vehicle in the fleet. Just my opinion though. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-21 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Superb III of the Polizia Stradale, front view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-21 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Superb III of the Polizia Stradale, rear right view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-21 11:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Pelecanus crispus (Dalmatian pelicans) roost
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-21 11:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Myotis mystacinus (Whiskered bat)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-21 11:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Lucilia sericata (Common green bottle flies) courting: female on left
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-21 11:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Villa Evrard (Bellignies), view from rue Virginette
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
This monument is listed as part of France's architectural heritage by the Ministry of Culture. -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ReneeWrites (talk) on 2026-01-21 15:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapelle des Jesuites (Sacré-Cœur de Montmartre), mosaic of the chapel's ceiling
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-21 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Sacred Heart church in Mysłowice, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-21 16:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Jurand shaft II winding engine house, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-21 15:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Cemetery chapel in Piekary Śląskie (Kalwaryjska Street), exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-21 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Trnovci), exterior
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 2026-01-21 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Gradešnica), exterior
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 2026-01-21 21:50 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Gradešnica), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior of this 19th-century church, which is famous for its rich decoration and well-preserved frescos. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-21 23:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Petromus typicus (Dassie rat), lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-21 23:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Spilopelia senegalensis senegalensis (Laughing dove), lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-21 23:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Lupulella mesomelas mesomelas (Cape black-backed jackal), lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-21 18:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Personnage assis portant une épaisse ceinture à la taille - Teotihuacan culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-21 18:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Genital cover (Thong) - Marajoara culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-22 08:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, oblique aerial view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
--benlisquareTalk•Contribs on 2026-01-22 08:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Godox electronic flashes, TT685II
Reason:
Currently the sharpest image of the Godox TT685II on Commons, the other available image was taken at ISO 800. -- --benlisquareTalk•Contribs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-22 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Araneus quadratus (Four-spotted orb weaver) female dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-22 14:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Araneus quadratus (Four-spotted orb weaver) female ventral
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-22 14:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Rana arvalis (Moor frog) head on view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-22 15:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of Częstochowa church in Dobiesław, exterior
Reason:
Church from 15th century, cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article in German Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-22 17:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D780
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-22 19:16 (UTC)
Scope:
3 Piastowska Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-22 23:26 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Stenče), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior of this 19th-century church, which is famous for its rich decoration and well-preserved frescos. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-22 23:27 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Stenče), exterior
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 2026-01-22 23:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Dormition of the Theotokos Church (Paralovo), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (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"