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
61,895 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,836 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,458 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,601 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Patagioenas maculosa (Spot-winged pigeon)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-21 06:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Spondylitis / 'Mullu' Chancay culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used (I think it is probably a Spondylus calcifer Carpenter, 1857) --Llez (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

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

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-06 09:53 (UTC)
Scope:
37 Floriańska Street in Kraków, portal
  •  Comment I understand that other people make scopes like that but I believe that would be better to nominate image of façade instead of detail like portal. --Gower (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-06 09:52 (UTC)
Scope:
18 Mikołajska street in Kraków, portal
  •  Comment I understand that other people make scopes like that but I believe that would be better to nominate image of façade instead of detail like portal. --Gower (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-06 09:52 (UTC)
Scope:
34 Zwierzyniecka street in Kraków, entry
  •  Comment I understand that other people make scopes like that but I believe that would be better to nominate image of façade instead of detail like portal. --Gower (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

̈*  Comment Yes, if the building is worth a VI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-06 11:19 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Dren, Demir Kapija), 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) 06:30, 13 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 2026-01-06 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George Church (Koprišnica), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. It was built in 1928 and is famous for its unusual architecture where the entrance to the narthex is located next to the apse on the eastern side. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-06 11:45 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Dračevica), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-07 11:45 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Bigor Dolenci), 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:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-07 12:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca leonina (Northern pig-tailed macaque) female
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-07 14:20 (UTC)
Scope:
102 29 Listopada Avenue in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-07 14:20 (UTC)
Scope:
104 29 Listopada Avenue in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-07 14:20 (UTC)
Scope:
12 Szeroka Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-08 08:08 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Premka), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. It is particularly famous for its wooden narthex and richly painted niches on the western side. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-08 08:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Cotyledon tomentosa (bear's paw) - flower
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-08 11:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Hylobates pileatus (Pileated gibbon) family (male on left)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-08 11:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Hylobates pileatus (Pileated gibbon) female
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-08 11:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Hylobates pileatus (Pileated gibbon) juvenile
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-08 19:30 (UTC)
Scope:
46 Siemianowicka Street in Chorzów - attic
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-08 19:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Giraffa giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe) males, cuddling
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-08 21:47 (UTC)
Scope:
The Peacekeeping Monument, view Rue Murray, Ottawa (Canada)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-09 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Salacca zalacca ripe fruit
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-09 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Funeral urn - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-09 09:12 (UTC)
Scope:
20 Market Square in Bytom, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-09 09:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Cambrai belfry seen from Rue du Beffroi (south) - Nord - France
Used in:
wikidata
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-09 09:29 (UTC)
Scope:
21 Market Square in Bytom, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Distracting foreground but it is the most actual and it has imho the best lighting in scope. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-09 09:47 (UTC)
Scope:
12 Market Square in Bytom, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-09 10:10 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Tuin), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. It was built in 1922 and is famous for its richly painted niches on the western side. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-09 10:14 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Rečani), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. It was built in 1933 and is famous for its richly decorated walls and niches with well-preserved paintings. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-09 10:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Theotokos (Krušica), 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 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-09 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Trichonephila inaurata madagascariensis (Golden orb weaver) female dorsal
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-09 11:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Jamides candrena (Fijian blue) underside
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-09 11:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Ptilinopus porphyraceus fasciatus (Crimson-crowned fruit dove)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2026-01-09 13:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Polypedates bengalensis, Male, Habitat shot.
Reason:
There aren't much good images of the species on Commons. All the photos of this category are by me, as of now. Being the author of the species, I clicked the photos during the research. This photo portrays a specimen on a bamboo tree - a typical behavior of the arboreal species. -- Kingshuk Mondal (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-09 20:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Giraffa giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe) head, licking its nose
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-09 20:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Giraffa giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe) hair patterns
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-09 20:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Giraffa giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe), spitting water
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:19, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-10 05:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Main altar of the Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Falera)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-10 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Cenchrus longisetus (Fresen.) Chiov. - inflorescence
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-10 06:22 (UTC)
Scope:
A high-ranking character or a shaman Chorrera culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Reason:
This statuette has a very modern look... but it's 2000 years old... -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-10 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Spondylus foliaceus juvenile, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-10 06:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Circe scripta (Script Venus), right valve

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-10 06:56 (UTC)
Scope:
19 Jainty Street in Bytom, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-10 12:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Franz Josef-Straße 8, Leoben
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-10 11:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Kaiserfeldgasse 10, Leoben
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-10 11:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Kaiserfeldgasse 8, Leoben
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-10 12:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of the Hôtel Biron, Paris

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-10 12:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Ketupa ketupu (Buffy fish owl)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-10 12:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Hirundo javanica (Pacific swallow)

̈* My error. Thanks. The taxonomy has changed since I took the photo ten years ago. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2026 (UTC) ̴̴[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-10 13:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhipidura javanica (Malaysian pied fantail) showing fanned tail
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-10 13:24 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Rabetino), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. It is famous for its interesting architecture combining the use of stone and tiles. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-10 13:27 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Miokazi), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church. It was built in 1937 on the foundations of an older church and is famous for its well-preserved frescos in the niches above the entrances. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-10 13:31 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Kozičino), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. It's a very good example of the church revival archiectural style during the late Ottoman rule and is famous for the nice use of stone in its construction. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-10 15:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis (Rosy-faced lovebird) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-10 15:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis (Rosy-faced lovebird) couple cuddling
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-10 15:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis (Rosy-faced lovebird) couple kissing

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2026-01-10 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Columba bollii

This would be fine for VI (though you should lighten shadows) if you have a look at how others format the scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-11 05:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Main pipe organ of the Römisch-katholische Kirche Maria Himmelfahrt (Ilanz)

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-11 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Circe scripta (Script Venus), left valve

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-11 07:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Brown Celestine. Floristella Mine, Valguarnera, Enna Province, Sicily, Italy

 Support Useful and used. --Pierre André (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-11 07:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Head of a figure wearing a tall, cylindrical headdress Manteña culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Agapornis roseicollis roseicollis (Rosy-faced lovebird) taking off
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Laniarius atrococcineus (Crimson-breasted shrike) lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Ardea sumatrana sumatrana (Great-billed heron) drying wings
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Prionochilus maculatus (Yellow-breasted flowerpecker) showing orange crown
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres grandis (Great myna)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Holy Cross church in Bytom-Miechowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Hall of the former power station Królewska Huta in Chorzów, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, exhibition hall of Muzeum Hutnictwa in Chorzów. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-11 12:42 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Mariacka Street in Bytom, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-11 17:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Murney Tower in Kingston, (Ontario), view from Waterfront Lot
Reason:
National historic site of Canada -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-11 20:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Tockus erythrorhynchus (Northern red-billed hornbill), female, lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-11 21:09 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Malo Crsko), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church, which is famous for its closed narthex and bell tower that are appended to the main church building. The previous nomination can be found on the following link. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-11 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Dolni Balvan), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Comment imho doubtful notability for an article, so also for VI --Gower (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment @Gower: I don't know. The church is mentioned in reliable sources as a notable example of the church revival architecture during the Ottoman rule in the 19th century, and there are articles on two different Wikipedias using sources in their respective languages. I'd accept that argument if there was an article only on the Wikipedia in the local language as a result of a lowered notability threshold due to local significance, but that's clearly not the case. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-11 21:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Mehmed-aga Mosque (Radanje), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century mosque, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-11 23:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Centre of Messier 13
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-12 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Stained glass window in the Herz-Jesu-Kirche (Falera)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-12 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagerstroemia indica - Bark in winter
Reason:
The appearance of the trunk and large branches varies according to the seasons; there are several exfoliations. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-12 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Scaler or grater Tumaco-La Tolita culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-12 06:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Neostyriaca corynodes ssp. saxatilis, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-12 11:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhyticeros undulatus (Wreathed hornbill) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-12 11:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhyticeros undulatus (Wreathed hornbill) female
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-12 11:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icthyophaga ichthyaetus (Grey-headed fish-eagle)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-12 11:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Wellington Street Theatre (Ontario), view from Johnson St, Canada
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
Cultural heritage monuments in Canada -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-01-12 13:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Gurdwara Patshahi Dasvin, Jhanda Kalan (view from east)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-12 14:01 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Budimirci), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-12 14:07 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Budimirci), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the interior of this 19-th century monastery church. It is particularly famous for the wooden iconostasis. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-12 14:12 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Dolno Ǵuǵance), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church, which was built on the foundations of an older building from the 16th or 17th century. It is particularly famous for its interesting architecture as the closed narthex in front of the main building gives the appearance that the church consists of two merged uneven parts. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-12 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
102-106, rue du Petit-Champlain, view in City, Québec (Canada)
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
Cultural heritage in Quebec -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-12 18:53 (UTC)
Scope:
6 Korfantego Street in Katowice, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland (art gallery building) with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-12 18:52 (UTC)
Scope:
40 3 Maja Street in Katowice, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-12 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
13 Dworcowa Street in Katowice, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland (Squeder's House) with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-12 23:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Tockus leucomelas (Southern yellow-billed hornbill), male, lateral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-12 23:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Tockus leucomelas (Southern yellow-billed hornbill), female, rear view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-12 23:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Tockus leucomelas (Southern yellow-billed hornbill), couple
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2026-01-13 01:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Melscher Straße 5 (Leipzig)
Used in:
Wikidata
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2026-01-13 01:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Melscher Straße (Leipzig)
Used in:
Wikidata
Reason:
Only image showing the complete street from the beginning to the end. -- August (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-01-13 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Cargo ship ANTJE, ENI 02006909, MMSI 244700852. Starboard, detail behind ship with wheelhouse.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-13 06:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Retrat del pintor Joaquim Sunyer by Manolo Hugué - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-13 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Seated female figurine Trujillo (Venezuela) Culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-01-13 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Saccostrea glomerata, right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-01-13 09:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Waltherpark, Bolzano, site prior to demolition and construction
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthotomus atrogularis (Dark-necked tailorbird) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Botaurus cinnamomeus (Cinnamon bittern) female in flight

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Prinia flaviventris (Yellow-bellied prinia)

 Oppose Several other good images that show the yellow belly better, eg one, two

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Junior Jumper (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Taj Mahal

 Comment The scope should be more specific such as South side of the Taj Mahal Tomb with the pool. 'region/country'--Pierre André (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-01-13 10:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Entrance gate of the restaurant with sign Les Filles du Roy, Maison Louis-Viger, view Rue Bonsecours (Montréal)
Reason:
The building is protected under the Culture Heritage Act -- Pierre André (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-01-13 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Sidi R'bat, Souss-Massa - southwest view from the beach
Used in:
en:Sidi R'bat • wikidata:Q100706115
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-13 16:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Courthouse on Korfantego Street in Katowice, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article, seat of court, previously Hohenlohe-Werke headquartrers. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-13 16:09 (UTC)
Scope:
2 Jana Matejki Street in Katowice, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-01-13 16:08 (UTC)
Scope:
4 Moniuszki Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-13 20:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Tockus leucomelas (Southern yellow-billed hornbill), male, in flight
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-13 20:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops hirundineus hirundineus (Swallow-tailed bee-eater), rear view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-13 20:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops hirundineus hirundineus (Swallow-tailed bee-eater) in flight
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"