Jump to content

Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI status

[edit]

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination.

Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)

[edit]

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this: 

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.

Renomination

[edit]

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in 

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with 

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued Review

[edit]

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: 

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidates

[edit]

How to review an image

[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure

[edit]
  • On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
 You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
 You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  •  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
 You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period

[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

[edit]
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
60,802 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 54,869 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,375 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,558 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-10-31 00:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Lama guanicoe (Guanaco) head
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-11-01 07:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Flag of the Azores
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-11-01 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Toyota Urban Cruiser (electric) - right front view
Used in:
de:Toyota, de:Toyota Urban Cruiser, en:List of Toyota vehicles, en:Toyota Urban Cruiser
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-02 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Scutarcopagia scobinata (Rasp Tellin), right valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-02 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Collège Salinis - Façade of the Salinis College in Auch, overlooking the square of the same name.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-02 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Mummified statuette. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-02 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Holodky (Bila Tserkva Raion) - School (view from the west)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-02 08:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Holodky (Bila Tserkva Raion) - Church of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (view from the north)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-02 11:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Puma concolor concolor (Puma) female

Useful and used. Common namew in scope should be South American Puma --GRDN711 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I recognize that given the habitat range of this second largest cat in the Americas, the taxonomy is complicated with more than one common name. Cougars as the second largest cat in the Americas, are known by different names – Andean puma, puma, mountain lion, cougar (most common), or, in the South American culture sense – “a snatcher of souls” or “helper of people”.
I was just looking for your rationale in your use of "puma" versus, say, "Andean puma" or "South American cougar" for the Puma concolor concolor. In the Wikipedia topic where this image is featured, the caption calls it a “South American cougar”. Your thoughts? --GRDN711 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thoughts. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Read the entire discussion and was not enlightened. IMO this cat is a cougar that has about 40 different names (scientific, common, colloquial) depending on the country and culture. Although I am not sure you won the discussion argument, I will accept your scope of "Puma concolor concolor (Puma) female". --GRDN711 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-02 11:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Puma concolor concolor (Puma) female hunting

 Comment I recognize the difficulty of making images of a species that are mostly nocturnal and are reclusive. The hunting behavior is good but the face turned away is problematic for me. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You have other images where the face is well-shown. Just wondered if you had a similar in this case. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-02 11:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Puma concolor concolor (Puma) female head

 Support but suggest tbe common name be changed to "South American Puma" to match this Puma concolor concolor sub-species. This should apply to all VI scopes of this big cat. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-02 11:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of the Duke of Bordeaux, aged seven, in Musée des Beaux-Arts (Valenciennes).
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-02 16:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Susanna (Rome), facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-02 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Prisca (Rome) - Exterior

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-02 17:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Nakić House, Split
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-02 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Peristil (Split)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Benji on 2025-11-02 17:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of Vercingétorix in Alise Sainte-Reine, France.
Reason:
I believe this image is of better value than the current valued image of this statue. -- Benji
  •  Oppose il y a déjà une image promue avec ce scope il ne peux pas y en avoir deux. Par contre si le scope est modifier en : Monument à Vercingétorix (le monument inclus la statue et le piédestal) alors le scope est recevable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Archaeodontosaurus: En fait, il y a déjà deux VI avec le même scope : celle-ci étant plus ancienne. Je n'ai pas l'habitude du fonctionnement des VIC (désolé), mais ce que je crois comprendre après avoir lu les règles, c'est que je devrais ouvrir une Most valid review pour proposer que la photo que je propose devienne VI à la place des deux déjà validées, c'est bien ça ? --Benji 07:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Non cette voie est un cul-de-sac plus personne ne s'en occupe. En fait les scopes doivent être diffèrent. c'est tout si tu change le scope en disant Monument à Vercingétorix c'est correct.

Nous avons tous eu de difficultés au début mais c'est normal. Bienvenu en VI! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment C'est un cul de sac ? Mais il y a pas un bot ? C'est vrai que ça fait des mois qu'il y a des procédures en cours. On peut les fermer manuellement, mais on dirait bien que tout le monde a la flemme (pour parler franchement), ou ne sait pas faire (comme moi). Mais sinon, oui, il faudrait mettre ta photo en compétition dans cette section avec les autres déjà VI pour ce même scope. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Merci pour vos conseils ! Bon j'ai essayé de proposer une MVR ... on verra si ça donne quelque chose, sinon tant pis. --Benji 14:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
E bailey (talk) on 2025-11-03 05:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Cruise Ship - IMO 9228368
Used in:
en:National Geographic Gemini
en:Lindblad Expeditions
  •  Comment @E bailey: Scope-link cateogry is fine but the name of this ship is not "Cruise Ship".
Just like a bird species is identified uniquely by a combination of scientific name and common name, a ship is identified uniquely with the name on the hull along with a universal ID number such as an IMO hull number. Suggest you use a scope similar to [[:Category: National Geographic Gemini (ship, 2001) | National Geographic ''Gemini'' – IMO 9228368]] --GRDN711 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-11-03 05:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Waterfall Above the Panixersee (Lag da Pigniu).
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-03 05:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Scutarcopagia scobinata (Rasp Tellin), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-03 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Portail d'entrée de la cathédral Saint Maire d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-03 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Stirrup-handled vase with a complex scene - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-03 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Former chapel of the Auch Seminary - Jérôme Cuzin Center seen from the homonymous square.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-03 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Tupaia glis (Common treeshrew)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-03 07:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Ploceus philippinus (Baya Weaver) on cenchrus americanus

Previous reviews

@Charlesjsharp: I love to see my photographs being used in Wikipedia pages or any other projects but I am not sure if it is a good practice to go and change an existing image with mine in wikipedia by myself. Are there any protocol or procedure? Please guide me. I presumed participating in FP, Quality and VI is a way where people will notice good images and use them in wiki projects. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment OK, now I understand and your reticence is worthy. However, it is very good wiki behaviour to quickly replace a poor image (infobox or elsewhere) in any Wiki. Everyone does it. Sometimes, if the change is borderline, you could wait till your image is VI (or even better FP). If there is another image we should look at when assessing VI, you can always point to it when you nominate yours. (ps your images are very valuable). Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-03 08:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Phylloscopus reguloides (Blyth's Leaf Warbler)

@Charlesjsharp: I have fixed it, thank you. Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-03 09:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Pont Saint-Laurent, Mâcon
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-03 09:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Culicicapa ceylonensis (Grey-headed Canary-Flycatcher)

Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-02 17:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Karepić Palace, Split

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-03 09:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - Outpatient clinic (view from the east)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-03 09:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - School (view from the east)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-03 12:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Neermahal, Tripura, India
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-04 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Rock crystal. 'Ghost quartz' - Minas Gerais - Brasil
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-04 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Retable de la Chapelle de la Purification - Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-04 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthropomorphic bottle - High-ranking dignitary - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-04 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Chama lazarus (Lazarus jewel box), colored form, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-04 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Prinia atrogularis (Black-throated Prinia)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-04 08:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - Zemsky school (view from the east)
Open for review.

}


Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-04 08:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - House of Culture (view from the south)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-02 16:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Manhattan Bridge and the Empire State Building from Washington Street, Brooklyn
Used in:
Manhattan_Bridge
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-04 11:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Lontra felina (Marine otter)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-04 11:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Lontra felina (Marine otter) swimming

 Comment We can't see much of the animal; there are several images in the category showing the entire animal swimming. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-04 11:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Myocastor coypus coypus (Coypu) feeding
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-04 12:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Dáil chamber
Used in:
w:Leinster_House. w:Debate_Chamber
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-04 13:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Neermahal, Tripura, India

 Oppose There cannot be two competing images with the same scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-04 13:57 (UTC)
Scope:
An entrance to a staircase at Neermahal, Tripura, India
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Chernilevsky talk on 2025-11-04 14:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Lactarius deterrimus (Orange milkcap, false saffron milkcap), picked fungi in basket.
Reason:
Geocoded, used in articles, Featured pictures link=Commons:Featured pictures, Quality images link=Commons:Quality images -- George Chernilevsky talk
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-05 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Reliquaire de St Austinde - Grand Chœur de la cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-05 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Bottle with a neck representing a jaguar - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-05 05:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Double edged Scraper on Blade, Aurignacian, Aurignac cave
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-05 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Chama lazarus (Lazarus jewel box), colored form, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-05 08:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - Village council (view from the southwest)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-05 08:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - Post office (view from the south)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-05 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Myocastor coypus coypus (Coypu) swimming
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-05 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Falco sparverius cinnamominus (American kestrel) male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-05 21:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Lama guanicoe (Guanaco)

 Comment Charles - You already have a recent VI image under the scope "Lama guanicoe (Guanaco)". If you like this one better, the pair should go to MVR to resolve. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-06 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Gari elongata (Elongate Gari), right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-11-06 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Cargo ship ANTJE, ENI 02006909, MMSI 244700852. Starboard side and front.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-06 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Xyphosia miliaria female (great banded furrow-bee) on Cirsium arvense
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-06 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Dominique de Vic - Trésor de la cathédrale d’Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-06 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Two star-shaped club heads - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-06 08:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Horoshkiv - Church of St. John the Theologian (view from the south)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-06 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Halaiky - Outpatient clinic (view from the north)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-06 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Sephanoides sephaniodes (Green-backed firecrown) feeding in flight on Kniphofia
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-06 10:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Spheniscus magellanicus (Magellanic penguin) showing wing underside
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-06 10:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Haematopus leucopodus (Magellanic oystercatcher) showing upperside of wings
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-06 11:11 (UTC)
Scope:
en:Sambhavanatha in white marble and Maru-Gurjara art style, en:Tirthankara
Reason:
Quality and valued images of Sambhavanatha are not much available. -- Brihaspati (talk)
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]

hamster

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2011-12-10 22:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster)

 Support Excellent. All criteria met.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)  Support Seems to be the best one Kersti (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-04 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European hamster)
Reason:
replacing image of museum specimen -- Charlesjsharp (talk)

talk]]) 14:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Acridotheres ginginianus nests

[edit]
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres ginginianus nests

 Comment Neither of the two images is VI, so Most Valued Review is not the right place for these. If you intended to nominate a Valued Image, choose the best one and put it at the bottom of the "New valued image nominations" section --Tagooty (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres ginginianus nests

 Comment Neither of the two images is VI, so Most Valued Review is not the right place for these. If you intended to nominate a Valued Image, choose the best one and put it at the bottom of the "New valued image nominations" section --Tagooty (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-24 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Old tavern Au chat barré avenue du Peuple Belge, Lille, view from Parc Louise de Bettignies
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)
Reason:
Perspective is ok on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]

 Support Light and colors are superior. --Milseburg (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-25 15:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Renaissance house, rue de Gand 31, Lille, view from rue des Tours
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-27 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, 61-63, rue de la Monnaie (Vieux-Lille), view from 28 Rue de la Monnaie
Used in:
Global usage
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, Lille
Reason:
The left facade is visible from this view. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

bats

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2015-08-05 13:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-05-06 15:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)
Reason:
I use a better camera these days! -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Karl Marx

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2015-12-20 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in:
see Global file usage
  •  Support I have checked this submision against the six VI criteria. AS this is a studio image, the geocoding requirement is not neccessary. In my opinion this submission meets the other five critieria. I would however recommend changing the scope from "Portraits of Karl Marx" (plural) to "Portrait of Karl Marx". (Singular) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 14:28, December 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
✓ Done ~ Moheen (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, There are several very good portrait paintings of KM. It is usual here to add "photographic portrait of KM".--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
User:Giovanni Cardinali (talk) on 2025-07-08 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in:
see Global file usage
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Peace Palace

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-12-15 16:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in:
fr:Palais de la Paix, fy:Fredespaleis, nl:Vredespaleis, ru:Дворец Мира

Scope changed from Peace Palace (front view), The Hague to Peace Palace (front view), The Hague. Note the underlying category has been changed, not the visible text. --Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolf im Wald on 2025-08-03 21:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in:
en:Andrew Carnegie, es:Arquitectura de los Países Bajos
Reason:
Nearly similar view but higher detail level. -- Wolf im Wald
  •  Support Compared to its predecessor this image is of far superior quality: detailing the imposing and enormously intricate brick- and stonework, flawlessly rendered and stitched, perfect verticals, exactly centered. Such an undertaking is not at all easy, as I know, and thus gives great credit to the photographer's efforts & skills. Seen at full size it is a one-of-a-kind image that not only exhibits a complete view of this edifice but also highlights and spotlights all the fine details of craftmanship combined in its construction. A joy to explore this image, simply phenomenal! -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Doris Day

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2015-03-27 10:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Doris Day

 Info Studio shot, so no geocoding. Yann (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: -1
2. DorisDay-midnightlace.jpg: +5 <--
=>
File:Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: Declined 
File:Day-midnightlace.jpg: Promoted <--

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JayCubby (talk) on 2025-08-07 01:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Doris Day
Used in:
extensive
Reason:
Good resolution reproduction of a useful studio portrait. -- JayCubby (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Vercingétorix in Alise Sainte-Reine, France.

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2014-06-08 14:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Vercingétorix by Aimé Millet, Alise Sainte-Reine, Burgundy, France
Reason:
I propose this view as a good representative of the entire monument in its environment. -- Myrabella (talk)

Best in Scope--Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Saqib (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2015-01-16 23:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue de Vercingétorix, Alise-Sainte-Reine, France

 Support Best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Benji on 2025-11-02 17:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of Vercingétorix in Alise Sainte-Reine, France.
Reason:
I believe this image is of better value than the current valued image of this statue. -- Benji
  •  Oppose il y a déjà une image promue avec ce scope il ne peux pas y en avoir deux. Par contre si le scope est modifier en : Monument à Vercingétorix (le monument inclus la statue et le piédestal) alors le scope est recevable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Archaeodontosaurus: En fait, il y a déjà deux VI avec le même scope : celle-ci étant plus ancienne. Je n'ai pas l'habitude du fonctionnement des VIC (désolé), mais ce que je crois comprendre après avoir lu les règles, c'est que je devrais ouvrir une Most valid review pour proposer que la photo que je propose devienne VI à la place des deux déjà validées, c'est bien ça ? --Benji 07:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Non cette voie est un cul-de-sac plus personne ne s'en occupe. En fait les scopes doivent être diffèrent. c'est tout si tu change le scope en disant Monument à Vercingétorix c'est correct.

Nous avons tous eu de difficultés au début mais c'est normal. Bienvenu en VI! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment C'est un cul de sac ? Mais il y a pas un bot ? C'est vrai que ça fait des mois qu'il y a des procédures en cours. On peut les fermer manuellement, mais on dirait bien que tout le monde a la flemme (pour parler franchement), ou ne sait pas faire (comme moi). Mais sinon, oui, il faudrait mettre ta photo en compétition dans cette section avec les autres déjà VI pour ce même scope. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Merci pour vos conseils ! Bon j'ai essayé de proposer une MVR ... on verra si ça donne quelque chose, sinon tant pis. --Benji 14:50, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

Pending valued image set candidates

[edit]
   
Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"