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]
candidate list Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
62,600 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,440 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,543 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,617 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-02-25 23:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Topolka, river in Gorno Jabolčište
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this river. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment The river is 45 km long, so one image showing a few metres is unlikely to be representative of the whole river. It may be useful to define a narrower scope linked to an appropriate category that includes a small, interesting part of the river. For eg this VI of the estuary of the Massa River. --Tagooty (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A S M Jobaer (talk) on 2026-02-26 18:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Yellow Brick Wall at Dhaka (Front view)

This is not just decoration it documents a rare, structurally integrated urban installation in Dhaka. Given the limited visual representation of contemporary public art from Bangladesh on Commons, it holds clear cultural and documentary value beyond aesthetic appeal. A S M Jobaer(talk) 01:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-02-27 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Infectious diseases in emergency medical response
Reason:
Only in scope: While the inpatient treatment of infectious diseases is comparably well-documented on Commons, this is the only image I could find that depicts the management of infectious patients in emergency medical services. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-02-27 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
voestalpine
Used in:
d:Q689750 and infoboxes on the corresponding Wikipedia article in multiple languages.
Reason:
I think this is the most representative image of the international steel producer voestalpine here on Commons, since it features the company's logo as well as one of its blast furnaces, which still is the backbone of voestalpine's steel production. Voestalpine is the only blast furnace operator in Austria. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-27 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Ardea alba (Great egret), head, hitting the water

 Comment The 90-deg rotation makes for a stunning FP. For VI, I think it is better to have the water surface horizontal. --Tagooty (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby, it's still the only picture of the bird hitting the water surface so it's still the best in scope. And it's also still valuable and makes sense rotated as it gives the bird's perspective. While I would understand the need for a picture of the whole body of the bird to be rotated, this one is a crop of just the head and it's reflection and to me the rotation makes sense which such head crop as it gives the bird's perspective. So I respectfully hope that you'll change your mind -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As stated above. I will support if the natural orientation is uploaded and offered as VIC. --Tagooty (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-27 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Pyrocephalus rubinus (Scarlet flycatcher), male, ventral view
This one is a different perspective with a full frontal view of the chest feathers. It allows to see how the bird is completely red when viewed from the front. There are VIs for every angle of a church (north, east, west, south, north-east, north west, south-east and south-west view) as there are for birds VIs for lateral, ventral and rear view as they showcase different feathers of the bird that are valuable informations -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Having a ventral VI is fine in general. In this particular case, there are already 2 VIs of male of the species. One of these shows about 75% of the breadth and 100% of the length of the ventral view. As birds have lateral symmetry, the 75% of the breadth gives complete information about the ventral view.
    One solution that I would support is to change the scope of File:095 Scarlet Flycatcher in Encontro das Águas State Park Photo by Giles Laurent.jpg to include the ventral view. This will also resolve the problem of 2 VIs for the same scope.
    For a simple church with lateral symmetry, I would oppose 8 VIs -- two or three would suffice. For a complex church such as the Basilica di San Francesco (Assisi), there could be more than 8 VI scopes. --Tagooty (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the other image is not a full ventral view. It is only on a full ventral view that you have a 100% red view of the chest and it is a valuable perspective of the bird -- Giles Laurent (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-02-28 04:42 (UTC)
Scope:
86 rue Georges Clémenceau (Cahors)
Reason:
Protected in plan de sauvegarde et de mise en valeur (PSMV) of Cahors : [1] (see 86 rue Georges Clémenceau in Cahors).
Note for reviewers: The PSMV (Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur) is a high-level urban protection status in France. Unlike a simple "listed building," it covers an entire historic district where every building is surveyed and protected by law. It is the French equivalent of a comprehensive Conservation Area. The linked PDF document is the official legal inventory proving the architectural value of this specific building. -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)

Previous reviews

  •  Comment This image has been declined twice; it would be good to remove it from the list. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Firstly, it wasn't declined, there was no response, secondly, don't you have anything more constructive to say other than "it would be good to remove it from the list". So please don't say false information. You just have to decline it now if you want. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment A protected building within a 'remarkable heritage site' is protected at the national level, as it becomes a public easement; it is preserved for its historical or architectural significance. Therefore, its importance is not merely local. I am surprised by your comment. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-28 07:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase depicting a figure wearing earrings - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Comment As this is one of many potteries, it will be useful to create a CAT for this one and link the scope to it. --Tagooty (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-02-28 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
High relief of Hygieia - inv.Ra 34 k - Musée Saint-Raymond - Toulouse

 Comment As this is one of many statues of Hygieia, it will be useful to create a CAT for this statue and link the scope to it. --Tagooty (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-02-28 09:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Minaret of the Bou Jeloud Mosque, Fez - view from northwest
Used in:
wikidata:Q138187560
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-02-28 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Roadside chapel "u Koconia" in Ujsoły, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 18-19th century with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-28 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Penelope ochrogaster (Chestnut-bellied guan), male, side view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-28 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Mesembrinibis cayennensis (Green ibis), side view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-02-28 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhea americana araneipes (Greater rhea), side view

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-01 00:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of Orélie-Antoine 1er, king of Araucania
Used in:
work in progress
Reason:
two pictures of this bust, this one is the best. see various versions in file page -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-01 01:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Psarocolius decumanus maculosus (Crested oropendola), rear view

 Support Très bonne image - Une description en français serait bien accueillie... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-01 01:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Psarocolius decumanus maculosus (Crested oropendola), side view
✓ Done -- Giles Laurent (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-01 01:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Molothrus bonariensis bonariensis (Shiny cowbird), female, side view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-01 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Mihrab of the Bou Inania Madrasa, Fes
Used in:
en:Mihrab • wikidata:Q138508859
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-03-01 05:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of the Kapel Heilige Drei Könige in Platenga.
Reason:
Q138512082 -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-01 06:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Funerary urn - Figure wearing a tall feathered headdress. - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used. --Pierre André (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-01 08:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Gate of Valenciennes in Douai, view from the South-East - Nord – France

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-01 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Alstom E-1400 class locomotive operated by ONCF, Morocco
Used in:
en:ONCF • ary:المكتب الوطني للسكات د الحديد (المغرب) • pl:ONCF • wikidata:Q3347643 • wikidata:Q1815809
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-01 17:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Theban bust of Category:Mithridates VI of Pontus in the archaelogical museum of Thebes, Greece.
Reason:
Best in scope because alone. The original version is available in the file page. Geocoded of course -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-01 23:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Sredno Egri, aerial view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-01 23:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Irish Memorial (Rabrovo), military monument from World War I
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monument dedicated to the deceased Irish soldiers in World War I. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support best in scope.such a strange monument in this place ! I did not know that irish soldiers fought here ...--Jebulon (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-01 23:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Greek cemetery (Rabrovo), military cemetery from World War I
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this cemetery from World War I. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment No tombs visible, which is strange for a cemetery. I think the n°3 of your series is more representative of this interesting place, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jebulon: I've replaced the nominated picture with the one where the tombs are visible.

--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-02 01:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Tomb lions, AM Thebes
Reason:
best picture in category, geocoded of course -- Jebulon (talk)

 Comment There appears to be a collection of lion statutes in this exhibit. How does one statue represent the collection? Possible VI scopes are (1) the whole exhibit or (2) one specific statue. --Tagooty (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-02 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase depicting a figure carrying a deer - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-02 06:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Vénus, inv.Ra 52, profil gauche - Musée Saint-Raymond.

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-02 07:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Our Lady of the Annunciation of Douai , exterior seen from the North-East - Nord - France

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-03-02 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Place des Arcades in Sauveterre-de-Rouergue, view from the south-east

 Best in Scope. --Pierre André (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-02 10:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Bab Boudir, Morocco - central section, view to the northeast
Used in:
en:Bab Boudir • ar:باب بودير • fr:Bab Boudir • wikidata:Q20407395
Reason:
The central section has important buildings including the mosque, school, swimming pool, etc. The view is from RP5420, the main highway passing by Bab Boudir. --Tagooty (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-03-02 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Alpine A390 - left front view
Used in:
de:Alpine (Automobilhersteller), de:Alpine A390, en:Automobiles Alpine, en:List of sport utility vehicles, en:Alpine A390, es:Alpine A390, nl:Alpine A390

 Comment Needs a geotag, per VIC guidelines. --Tagooty (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-03 03:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Minaret of the Zawiya of Chellah, Rabat - southwest facade
Used in:
en:List of mosques in Morocco • wikidata:Q138527734
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-03 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Church Saint-Sauveur of Castelsarrasin Tarn-et-Garonne, France - The 19th-century confessional
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-03 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Decorated circular ear ornament (Tambas) Chimù Culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
ROCKY (talk) on 2026-03-03 07:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Close-up photographs of rice "Shobraj"
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-03 08:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Lake Miravci, view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this lake. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-03 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Oraovica), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church, which is a very good example of the neo-Byzantine style. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-03 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Gabrovo), exterior view from south-west
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:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-03-03 09:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Eated Figure Bottles (Mochica Sculptural Ceramics) - Museo Arqueológico Rafael Larco Herrera - Lima

 Comment There are many pottery images in the linked Category. It will be useful to create a sub-Category for this pottery. --Tagooty (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-03 23:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestris (Campo flicker), female, side view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-03 23:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Cariama cristata (Red-legged seriema), ventral view
@Tagooty, the first image you linked is of very low quality (very blurry) and extremely bad point of view hiding the eyes. The present image is of much much higher quality (six times more pixels!!) and of infinitely better point of view perfectly showing the eyes of the bird. The other image you linked is a side view that shows 0 ventral feathers and is therefore of a completely different scope. Moreover it has a very bad background contrast with the subject. Therefore there is no doubt to me that the present image is the best in scope and I sincerely hope that you will change your mind -- Giles Laurent (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-03-03 23:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Tigrisoma lineatum lineatum (Rufescent tiger heron), side view
  •  Comment The linked sub-cat has only this one image. There are several other images of this sub-species in the parent CAT, including some potential VIs. It will help the review if the images of the ssp are moved from the parent to the subcat. --Tagooty (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The image you linked is of much smaller resolution and quality while also having a too wide crop. The light in your link also doesn't show the usual colors of the bird. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-04 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Grand Duke Ferdinand III of Lorraine, in Arezzo

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-04 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait vase - Figure wearing ear ornaments. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-04 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Massey Ferguson 290 tractor, left side view
Used in:
wikidata:Q98542069
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-04 08:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Sheker Mosque, Douar Chiker - south facade
Used in:
en:Daya Chiker • wikidata:Q138566175
Reason:
Note: Douar Chiker is a village located in the Daya Chiker depression. -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-04 22:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Udovo, aerial view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-04 23:07 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Theodore of Amasea Church (Dolno Orehovo), external view from south-east
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 2026-03-04 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Gruništa), external view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

I have added the following to the VI Nomination ProcedureːPlease ensure you have the FastCCI gadget enabled. You should use this to identify existing VIs with similar scopes. Note that if an image shows up as FP or QI it may also be a Valued Image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Closed valued image candidates

[edit]


Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

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

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

Pending valued image set candidates

[edit]
   
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"