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
62,140 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,039 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,495 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,606 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (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)

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

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-18 23:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Barešani Monastery, aerial view from north-east
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 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-19 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Saccopteryx bilineata (Greater sac-winged bat)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

View
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)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
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)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Tagooty (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2026-01-20 12:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Eurypauropodidae
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (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]

 Oppose The scope must give the name of the species, when the genus contains several species, which is the case here. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Karachun (talk) on 2026-01-20 15:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Entelodon
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 28 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 2026-01-20 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)

 Comment Not geocoded, otherwise good. --Tagooty (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (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)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-20 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Coracias caudatus (Lilac-breasted roller) landing, 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]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

View
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]

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. George Chernilevsky talk 13:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-21 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Superb III of the Polizia Stradale, front view
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. George Chernilevsky talk 13:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-21 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Superb III of the Polizia Stradale, rear right view
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. George Chernilevsky talk 13:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-21 11:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Myotis mystacinus (Whiskered bat)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

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 Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-21 23:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Lupulella mesomelas mesomelas (Cape black-backed jackal), lateral view
  •  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is a good image that illustrates the species well as an unencumbered side view often does.
    I support the nomination but IMHO I think for this image, you could have taken your scope up one level to best-of-species rather than the lower and more limiting species with view sub-scope. VI ratings are not forever. If another photographer comes along with a better image that meets the generic scope of the nomination, they can challenge the existing VI by Most Valued Review. A best-of-species VI is at the highest level and in general, more difficult to challenge than at a lower level. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-21 18:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Genital cover (Thong) - Marajoara culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-22 08:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, oblique aerial view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
--benlisquareTalk•Contribs on 2026-01-22 08:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Godox 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.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-22 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Araneus quadratus (Four-spotted orb weaver) female (dorsal) on wild carrot (Daucus carota)

I can do, but is your VI of a live animal or a specimen? I assumed, probably incorrectly, that is was a specimen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment She was alive that day. This specimen was brought to us; since then, she has become part of the Museum's collection with a pin in her back..--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done scope updated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I like the image but IMO the scope is still problematic. The addition of 3 sub-scopes, is overly descriptive and too narrow to be a sufficiently generic VI scope. Also, as Charles has pointed out, when you put two species with their common and scientific names in the same scope, it becomes comfusing. Further, association with wild carrot (Daucus carota) is not unique to the species.
This is a good image. Is there a reason wny the egg sack of this spider is reddish and not in the exisitng VI image?--GRDN711 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-22 14:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Araneus quadratus (Four-spotted orb weaver) female underside
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:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-22 23:27 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Stenče), aerial view
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

*  Comment that one: File:Црква Св.Пророк Илија с.Стенче горни Полог 1.JPG is more representative, portal and walls are visibility.--Pierre André (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
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)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-01-23 15:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Renault Clio VI - left front view
Used in:
de:Renault, de:Renault Clio, en:Renault Clio, en:List of Renault vehicles
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 28 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 22:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Podino), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, whose foundation stone dates back to the early Christian Roman period. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-23 22:25 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Ivanjevci), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-23 22:30 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Novoselani, Bitola), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-24 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Huastec ceramic figurines - Huastec culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-24 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
'América' - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-24 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Dosinia maoriana (Maori Dosinia), left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 13:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-24 11:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Hemidactylus garnotii (Garnot's gecko) dorsal
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-24 11:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Eutropis multifasciata (Many-lined sun skink) female

 Comment As male and female look similar (to the uninitiated), it will be useful to have a sub-CAT for female. --Tagooty (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-24 11:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Eutropis multifasciata (Many-lined sun skink) male
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-01-24 13:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Emberiza cirlus female
Used in:
en:Cirl bunting • en:Tazekka National Park • wikidata:Q137869147 • wikidata:Q148583
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2026-01-24 15:50 (UTC)
Scope:
MV Machranga
Reason:
The photo portrays a luxury Tourist boat in the mangrove forest of Sundarbans, West Bengal. -- Kingshuk Mondal (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-24 22:39 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Nošpal), facade
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the facade of this church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-24 22:49 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Nošpal), 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 2026-01-24 22:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Christ (Dobruševo), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-25 06:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Tivela mactroides, (Trigonal Tivela), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Galactic Center Radio Arc (talk) on 2026-01-25 07:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Bayside blue(bus)), operation
Used in:
Reason:
This image shows an articulated bus making a U-turn in regular service, with both the front and rear sections visible at the same time. It also illustrates the vehicle’s role in transporting passengers to and from an international cruise terminal. -- Galactic Center Radio Arc (talk)
  •  Oppose I think that the scene itself is not very fitting to the scope. The image is not featuring the bus as a clear main subject. If it were cropped just to the bus (assuming an undistorted photo), it would fit the scope Bayside Blue (Yokohama bus service). --Aciarium (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-25 07:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Funeral urns - Zapotec culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Pierre André (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-25 08:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Amphimoschus ponteleviensis - Right hemimandible
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-25 08:23 (UTC)
Scope:
The choir of Saint Martin Church in Marquette-en-Ostrevent – Nord - France
Reason:
The choir of the church is Historic monuments of France -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-25 09:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Stanci Waterfall
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this waterfall, which is the tallest one in the Osogovo Mountains. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-25 10:14 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Mojno), 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 2026-01-25 10:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Crničani), 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 2026-01-25 10:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Nativity of the Theotokos Church (Crničani), bell tower
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 18th-century bell tower. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Only one in scope. --Aciarium (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-25 11:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Sony ILCE-6700

but far too dark Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-25 12:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Eutropis multifasciata (Many-lined sun skink) mating ritual; male and female intertwined
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-25 12:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Eutropis multifasciata (Many-lined sun skink) mating ritual; male bite hold on female

 Support Best in scope and useful. An unusual shot! --Tagooty (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-25 12:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Ophiophagus hannah (King cobra) juvenile coiled, showing tongue
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-25 14:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôpital Saint-Joseph de la Grave, Toulouse
  •  Comment There are several issues: the image shows the Chapel of Saint-Joseph de la Grave Hospital and the hospital entrance. The courtyard renovations, including the new gardens, have long since been completed. The scope should be reduced to what is shown, and the year the image was taken should be specified. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-25 15:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Katowice old train station office building, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, with article about the whole complex. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-25 17:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Old main building of Genech station, view from Rue de la Libération
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
Project studies within the master plan in the European Metropolis of Lille Ligne de Somain à Halluin -- Pierre André (talk)

 Support Best in scope. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-25 18:14 (UTC)
Scope:
September Scouts Monument, Katowice, designed by Zygmunt Brachmański, front view
Reason:
Big monument with own article at Market Square in Katowice designed by important sculptor Zygmunt Brachmański. -- Gower (talk)

VI but artist name should be in scope Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-26 06:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Pan flute - Intermediate Periode Reeds and textiles - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-26 06:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Nicoya pottery - Monkey figurine - Culture Nicoya-Guanaste - Costa Rica - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-26 09:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Iveco LMV MedEvac of the Army of Italy, left front view
Used in:
it:Iveco LMV
Reason:
IMO this is the best image in the given scope. -- Aciarium (talk)

 Comment Please specify in the scope: left front view. --Pierre André (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre André Leclercq: ✓ Done, thanks for the review! --Aciarium (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-26 10:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Boulenophrys brachykolos (Short-legged toad) side view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-26 10:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Boulenophrys brachykolos (Short-legged toad) ventral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-26 10:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Takydromus hani (Southeast Asian green grass lizard)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-26 11:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Holy Trinity church in Rudziczka, view towards the main altar
Reason:
Unique oval-shaped church with unusual roof from 1803; culture heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)

 Comment The description/caption should specify the interior and view. Otherwise it is VI. --Tagooty (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-26 13:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Sculptures at the Birla Mandir, Hyderabad (front view of statue, view from west)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-26 13:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Jagruti (full illustration)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-26 13:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Canon EOS 650D
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
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)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
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)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-26 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
, exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is famous for its eclectic architecture. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-26 22:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Facade of the Genech Institute, view from 341 Rue de la Libération
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
Founded in 1894, it is one of the oldest agricultural education establishments in France -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Julian Lupyan (talk) on 2026-01-26 23:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Galata Tower - Ceiling
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-27 05:29 (UTC)
Scope:
left side altar of the Römisch-katholische Kirche Maria Himmelfahrt (Ilanz)

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-27 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Tivela mactroides (Trigonal Tivela), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-27 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Statuette of a seated figure - Teotihuacan culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-27 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Codex Drawing - Paza and Ytzquintepec - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
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)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-27 17:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Bell tower of the Church of Our Lady of the Visitation, Genech, view from Rue de la Libération
Reason:
The church has many Cultural assets of French heritage -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-27 20:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Isar (Marvinci), archaeological site
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this archaeological site, which is classified as a settlement with necropolis from the 7th century BC to the 6th century AD. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-27 20:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Manastirište (Nebregovo), archaeological site
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this archaeological site, which is classified as a settlement with basilica from the late antiquity (early Christian period). -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-27 20:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Tauresium, archaeological site
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this archaeological site, which is classified as a late antique and early medieval town known as the birthplace of Byzantine Emperor Justinian I. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-28 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Female figurines say 'Panuco' - Huastec culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-28 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Smithsonite Geode from Vieille Montagne (Altenberg; Kelmisberg) Belgium
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-28 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Pitar citrinus (Yellow Pitar Venus), right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-28 11:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Charaxes bernardus hierax (Tawny rajah) male underside
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-28 11:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Ypthima huebneri (Common four-ring) dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-28 11:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio memnon agenor (Great mormon) male underside
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-28 14:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Wojciech bridge in Zabrze
Reason:
One of the few remaining mining sand-filling bridges in Poland; cultural heritage monument with own article in Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-28 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Lawrence and Saint Casimir church in Rajcza, exterior, aerial view
Reason:
Sanctuary, cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-28 15:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of St. John in Siewierz, interior
Reason:
Romanesque church, one of the oldest churches in Poland, cultural heritage monument. -- Gower (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"