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
62,238 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,125 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,503 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,610 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
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)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-20 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Coracias caudatus (Lilac-breasted roller) on the ground, spreading wings, showing wing upperside
@GRDN711, the one you have linked is in flight and not landing! Also the one you have linked is completely blurry with no details and the light is much worse than the present candiafe showcasing the beautiful vibrant colors of this bird -- Giles Laurent (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Giles - In your other image, I could see that the bird was taking off. In this one, it is not apparent and I would not know it if you has not told me. So, "landing" as a sub-scope is a little dubious.
As for the display of the upper wing, the other image clearly shows a full display of both the wing and tail feathers. Yes, your image is technically superior as you are a better photographer. But for VI, while good quality is encouraged, the requirement for review is at the size and resolution of the image on this page. The other image better illustrates the pattern of upper wing feathers, including the tail feathers which are lost in this nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711 I 100% promise it just landed from a nearby bush to search insects on the ground (which he successfully found). Moreover the other image you have linked has one wing hidden behind the bird while the present one shows completely every single feather of both wings. Also, the bluriness of the other picture is already immediately visible at review size while the present candidate has every feather in focus and without motion blur. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am doubly saddened by the outcome of this nomination. Firstly, the negative vote was inept, but I am especially astonished that no one stepped forward to rectify this injustice. This image can be submitted to the FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment To me this is a valued image of the species on the ground with wings spread. Visually, I am not able to see that it is in the landing phase of flight. Unfortunately, per "verifiable" and "no original research" criteria of Wikipedia, the statement of the photographer, however accurate, cannot be relied on. If the scope is modified as suggested, I will support. --Tagooty (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Tagooty -- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

View
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)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-23 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Jesus (Čebren), exterior
Reason:
I am re-nominating this picture after the previous nomination was closed as the replacement with another picture had not been allowed. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-26 19:06 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Karamani), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is famous for its nice use of stone. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Support Best in scope and useful.
    The goal of VI is to identify images of potential use in Wiki projects. The linked Categorty has been in existence since 2019. The images in the CAT show a sturdy building and cemetery which have obviously been in existence for decades, and are likely to stand for decades more. The nom image has been viewed 3,800+ times. Given the global Internet, many of these views will have been non-local. Promoting as VI will encourage use in Wiki projects.
    Generally, as VI is a digital gallery, there is no constraint of space (as in a physical gallery). As long as a scope is potentially useful, I prefer to encourage, especially for images from countries/regions that are under-represented in Wikipedia and the largely-English Internet. --Tagooty (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-26 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Trn), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  • @Gower: This church is an example of the revival church architecture from the 19th century, and it is documented in reliable academic sources (for instance, in this book published by the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts). Moreover, there's also a Wikipedia article in Bulgarian (not only in Macedonian). I really don't know what additional criteria are necessary for a church to get a VI scope other than a representative picture used across the Wikimedia projects, coverage in academic sources and a Wikipedia article in a language other than the vernacular spoken by the local population (at the very least, all these criteria clearly demonstrate that its significance is much wider). If the outer appearance of the building also matters, it's useful to know for preparing my future nominations. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-27 13:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Leoben Göss Stellwerk 2
Reason:
IMO this image is the best in scope to illustrate an overview of the given interlocking system. -- Aciarium (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-28 11:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Charaxes bernardus hierax (Tawny rajah) male underside
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2026-01-29 13:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Hochaltar Schönbach − total view

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-29 21:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Christ (Dovezence), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which was built in the 16th or 17th centuries and is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 4 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 2026-01-29 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Vataša), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church, which was built by the end of the 16th century and is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-29 21:46 (UTC)
Scope:
House of Strašo Pindžur, museum
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this memorial house, which works as a museum and is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-30 05:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Römisch-katholische Kirche Maria Himmelfahrt (Ilanz) Stations of the Cross no 1.
  • @Gower: Answer: In my opinion, all the Stations of the Cross in this church deserve VI status. As you can see, they are very old paintings, probably as old as the church itself, and painted specifically for this church. The scenes are painted on a rough surface. The paintings clearly need restoration and cleaning.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-30 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Asaphis violascens var. dichotoma (Pacific Asaphis), right valve

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-30 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Pre-Columbian Guanaste cultures - Votive axe or 'God axe' - Culture Nicoya-Guanaste - Costa Rica - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used.--Pierre André (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-30 17:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Rheinbaben Palace in Siemianowice Śląskie – exterior, southern façade
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument with its own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-30 17:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Siemianowice III shaft winding tower in Siemianowice Śląskie, exterior
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-30 17:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Siemianowice Śląskie Town Hall, exterior
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument with its own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:10, 4 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 2026-01-30 22:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Lake Bučim
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this lake. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Comment that artifical pond/lake is very small (about 8 398,74 m²). Per VIS „Like any other place, a natural site should be of more than local interest to justify a scope”. It has an article on a Wikipedia, but you wrote it. I'm not sure it is worth VI. --Gower (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-30 22:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Lake Topolnica
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this lake. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-30 22:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Lake Oslomej
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this lake. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-31 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
The entrance door to the House of Henri IV on rue d'Espagne in Auch.

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-31 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase with a neck depicting a cetacean - Chupícuaro culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-31 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Asaphis violascens var. dichotoma (Pacific Asaphis), left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-31 08:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Huta Pokój gate II building, façade
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-31 07:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Housing estate at Górnicza Street in Siemianowice Śląskie, aerial view
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument with its own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-31 07:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Huta Jedność housing estate in Siemianowice Śląskie, aerial view
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument with its own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-01-31 18:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Arctium lappa (fruit) Seed clusters on a branch in its natural environment.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-01 06:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Austriella corrugata (Corrugate Lucina), right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-01 06:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Chrysoperla carnea (common green lacewing) Dorsal view on Lagestroemia indica flower
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-01 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Statuette of Tlaloc - Aztec culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Comment Appears to be good. Will be useful to have a sub-CAT for this statuette. --Tagooty (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-02-01 11:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Voisin C31 - left front view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-02-01 12:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Main gate of Chellah, Rabat, Morocco
Used in:
en:Chellah • wikidata:Q137884195
Reason:
The ruins at Chellah are part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site. This main gate was completed in 1339 AD. -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-02-01 18:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Bolzano train station - Clocktower, north view
Reason:
This tower is part of the Bolzano/Bozen Central Train Station Building, a cultural heritage monument. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-01 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
St. John the Baptist church in Zabrze, exterior
Reason:
The oldest church in Zabrze from 1857, a cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-01 20:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Euura miliaris (Army Willow Nematine), larva
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-01 21:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of St. Nicholas Church (Mrzen Oraovec), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior of this 16th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-01 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Orašac Oak
Reason:
This is the only picture of this tree, which is a national natural monument. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-01 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Beli Oak
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 600-year-old tree, which is a national natural monument and a natural rarity. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-02 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Austriella corrugata (Corrugate Lucina), left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-02 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Female statuette - Nayarit culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-02 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Chanoine Pierre-Antoine Fourment - Archiprêtre de Saint Sauveur
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
M0tty (talk) on 2026-02-02 20:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerobatics maneuvers timelapse
Used in:
w:en:Cobra_maneuver#Derivatives of the cobra
Reason:
This is the only timelapse of this aerobatic maneuver on commons. -- M0tty (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:25 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Kališta), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century cave church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:42 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Oktisi), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which was built on the foundations of an early Christian basilica from the 5th century and is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Bylazora, storage room
Reason:
This is the only picture of this relatively well-preserved storage room on the archaeological site of Bylazora, which is classified as an ancient settlement from the 3rd century BC. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Bylazora, archaeological site
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the archaeological site of Bylazora, which is classified as an ancient settlement from the 3rd century BC. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Pawłowice Palace, Wrocław, exterior
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Palace in Jarząbkowice, exterior
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-02 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Palace in Krotoszyn, exterior
Reason:
A cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-03 02:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Main facade of the Hôtel de Soubise, Paris
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-03 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Mammès, soleil de juin - Alfred Sisley - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-03 06:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Antoni Caba - Autoretrat - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-03 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Psammotella cruenta (Operculate Sanguin), right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-02-03 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Municipal territory of Woignarue, view from Course du Montmignon
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the Hâble d'Ault, which is a national cultural heritage site in France. -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-02-03 13:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Raffaello-Sernesi-Straße 3 (Bozen), south-west view
Reason:
Offices of the Trentino-South Tyrol regional administration in Bozen/Bolzano -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-02-03 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Kia Pregio - left front view
Used in:
de:Kleintransporter, de:Kia Motors, de:Kia Pregio
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-03 20:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Kamnik Canyon
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this canyon. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-03 20:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Kalimanci Lake
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this lake, which has a significant contribution to country's electricity production. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-03 20:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Lake Lisiče
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this lake. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-03 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio clytia (Common mime) form dissimilis, dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-03 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio clytia (Common mime) form dissimilis in flight

 Comment The lower wings are damaged; it's difficult to use it as a reference. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-02-03 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Parthenos sylvia gambrisius (Clipper) underside
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-02-04 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Psammotella cruenta ( Operculate Sanguin), left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-04 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
La Vierge de Rome par Mathurin Moreau 1876 - Castelsarrasin
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-04 07:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of Bethlehem - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2026-02-04 08:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Flügelaltar Pulkau − total view
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"