Commons:Valued image candidates

Skip to image nominations

Skip to most valued reviews

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.

Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI status

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)

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

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

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

How to review an image

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

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. -- ~~~~`	Comment My comment. -- Example	You have a comment.
`*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~`	Info My information. -- Example	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. -- ~~~~`	Question My question. -- Example	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.

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

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

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

61,119 closed valued image candidates
Closed as		Nominations
Promoted	55,139 (90.2%)
Undecided	3,402 (5.6%)
Declined	2,578 (4.2%)

New valued image nominations

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-18 19:33 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Morskie Oko
Reason: Morskie Oko is a major tourist attraction in Poland and the second-largest lake in the Tatra Mountains, the highest Polish mountains. That image (author: Tomasz O.) isn't perfect (small resolution), but as only one on Commons shows real shape of that lake, because photo was taken from mountain pass over the lake (and sadly it's probably only photo from that pass, also big tourist attraction). Another good picture is that one, but from different perspective: File:Panorama-Morskiego-Oka.jpg. -- Gower (talk)
Oppose There are several better images of the lake including this one and this one. --Tagooty (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tagooty: thanks, I'll nominate one of them later. For me they are more pretty too --Gower (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:04 (UTC)
Scope: Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise by Camille Pissarro - Musée d’Orsay - Paris
Used in: wikidata fr:Liste_de_peintures_de_Camille_Pissarro, en:List_of_paintings_by_Camille_Pissarro, de:Werkverzeichnis_von_Camille_Pissarro/Blütezeit
Comment @JackyM59: scope (it was: Paintings and pictorial arts) is extremely wide and covers hundreds of thousands works of art. What makes this image the best choice for the scope? Pissarro is of course fine painter, but I'm not convinced. --Gower (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment scope and uses are updated . -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment how about that one in the new scope?: File:Julie Pissarro écossant des pois, Camille Pissarro - 3160.jpg, the frame isn't clipped here. --Gower (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sorry, I didn't photograph the entire frame. I also included a version without the frame. Next time I'll take a picture of the entire frame. --JackyM59 (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] ~~Oppose~~The subject is the painting. The scope must give the title (standard title given by the museum) followed by the name of the author, then that of the museum. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] CommentI have corrected the scope category.--JackyM59 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Scope changed from 1877 paintings by Camille Pissarro to Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise by Camille Pissarro - Musée d’Orsay - Paris --JackyM59 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Oppose after scope clarification I prefer your other frameless version: File:Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise - Sans cadre.jpg, which can be nominated later --Gower (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @JackyM59: impressive that your both versions have better colors than official photo! link --Gower (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] CommentI took the photo during a temporary exhibition at the Tourcoing Museum. I don't remember the light. I understand the criticism and the demands. I am slowly discovering how you work. I will suggest the frameless version later. https://muba-tourcoing.fr/EXPOSITIONS/Passees/Peindre-la-nature.-Paysages-impressionnistes-du-musee-d-Orsay --JackyM59 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Ok for me. But it is best, for all paintings, to avoid the frame. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. Gower (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:00 (UTC)
Scope: Ostearius melanopygius cocoon
Reason: The only photo of cocoons of this species on Commons. The photo is not perfect (its location did not allow taking a photo from a different perspective), but it probably shows well the shape and structure of these cocoons and their arrangement in relation to each other. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose => undecided. Gower (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:20 (UTC)
Scope: Macrosaccus robiniella, lateral view of imago
Reason: One of two photos on Commons (the second one is worse, also by me: link) showing the imago of this taxon in lateral view. The quality and detail are not high, but I think that the key details and specificity of the pattern are visible. -- Gower (talk)
Too dark as it is. And to make it more valuable, Turkish Wikipedia has about 1.5m visitors to its home page every month, but English Wikipedia 175m! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Charlesjsharp: thanks a lot for your remarks. I didn't notice that darkness. Brighter and higher resolution version uploaded & image added to enWiki. How it looks now? --Gower (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Better though still quite dark. And when you look closely, it is not in focus, so I wouldn't nominate it myself. And for this sort of shot on a window glass, I would actually rotate 90 deg. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Charlesjsharp: thanks for your review, sharpness and quality is indeed mediocre, that insect is very small and I don't have premium lens. It was indeed shot on a window glass, but position was as it is, vertical, so I didn't change it. But so far we don't have nothing better unfortunately. --Gower (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] For me the quality is too low as it can't really be used for identification or anything else. I'm not sure you can blame the camera or lens if the autofocus is working properly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-21 10:38 (UTC)
Scope: "Bauhinia Acuminata" (Dwarf White Bauhinia) Flowers in Gujarat, India
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-21 10:57 (UTC)
Scope: 2.5 Ah cells of Sodium-Ion
Comment: Note that the scope must be linked to a category --Archaeodontosaurus ( talk) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: Done—Brihaspati (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Unfortunately not: the scope is still not correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Mile (talk) on 2025-11-21 17:41 (UTC)
Scope: Bab Bou Jeloud, Fez, Morocco
Used in: Morocco
Reason: good view, colors, size -- Mile (talk)
Comment The scope is too broad. "Daylight" is irrelevant, but the city name is essential.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @User:Gower, @Archaeodontosaurus i can delete daylight if so. --Mile (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @PetarM: thanks, scope is better now, you can also add e.g. "view from the west" to clarify it (we have also view from the east with green walls). That one photo is also good: File:Bab_Bou_Jeloud.jpg (side view, my favourite so far, it shows its structure, not only facade), that has worse quality than nominated one but no crowd on the foreground: File:Fes Bab Bou Jeloud 2011.jpg (front view). --Gower (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:21 (UTC)
Scope: Typical Tidal forest of Sundarbans Tiger Reserve, West Bengal, India.
Comment @Herpking: maybe image with tiger would be more suitable? Like this one: File:Sundarban Tiger.jpg --Gower (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Info @Gower: That image portrays a Tiger more than the forest landscape itself. -- Kingshuk Mondal (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 12:41 (UTC)
Scope: August Kiss bust by Gustav Blaeser, Artistic Casting Department of Museum in Gliwice
too dark Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Charlesjsharp: New brighter version uploaded. This is a very dark museum, thanks for pointing it out. Done? How it looks like now? --Gower (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support unfortunate reflection, but cannot have been easy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 12:48 (UTC)
Scope: 10000 W light bulb
Reason: Exhibited in the museum in Łaziska. The only photo of a bulb with this power that I found on Commons. -- Gower (talk)
Comment Too dark, but easy to fix. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Done? New brighter version uploaded, thanks. I didn't notice that. --Gower (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Earth605 (talk) on 2025-11-22 17:15 (UTC)
Scope: Copy of the Bronocice pot
Comment I recommend linking 'Bronocice pot' category to the scope and add information, that photo shows copy of Bronocice Pot. --Gower (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support not perfect but useful --Gower (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-22 17:44 (UTC)
Scope: 18th-century flintlock muskets, view in Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:30 (UTC)
Scope: Clausilia rugosa ssp. parvula, shell
Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope, @Llez: sharpness is lacking this time (why?); I added it to the Wikidata item, which I encourage you to do in the future --Gower (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:48 (UTC)
Scope: *'Culot à l'escargot XVe' - Musée des Amériques* - Auch**
@Archaeodontosaurus: I suggest adding categories for bases and age of creation. The existing categories are too general and it will be difficult to find them --Gower (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: category for bases not added… Something from that could be very useful: Category:Bases (architecture) --Gower (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is now referenced in Wikidata --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: if it is base (as scope claims), still no category for bases added… --Gower (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment It's difficult to find a good translation. It's not a "BASE," it's an "CULOT" and I can't find the word in English. As a substitute, I've provided a description. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: thanks for the explanation, maybe Category:Culs-de-lampe in France could be suitable? --Gower (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done I was not familiar with this term, which, indeed, applies perfectly to the subject. You are very efficient...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support --Gower (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:52 (UTC)
Scope: Peasant woman with a distaff - 'Musée des Amériques' - Auch
Question do we know anything about who M. Puget was? If so, you could create a category and a Wikidata item for it --Gower (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Unfortunately, there is no trace of this painter apart from his signature on the painting, along with the date. No database lists it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:56 (UTC)
Scope: Stirrup-handled vase - the god Ai Apaec - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support --Gower (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] a different PoV would show the stirrup? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Good idea, but it's impossible for this part; it's fixed to a rod behind it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-23 11:08 (UTC)
Scope: Powder horn made of cow horn, 18th century AD, Palais des Beaux Arts - (Lille)
Used in: Global usage
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-23 11:57 (UTC)
Scope: Oenanthe cypriaca (Cyprus wheatear) male
Comment: Note that the scope must be linked to a category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Scope is linked now. -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-23 18:00 (UTC)
Scope: *Gateway to the Opéra de Lille, view from Pl. du Théâtre*
Support Useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment It's a pity that it's only a fragment of the gateway, not the whole thing --Gower (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-11-23 18:21 (UTC)
Scope: Detail of a Rapids at stream Ual da Foppas along the trail Andiast-Breil-Brigels.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-23 22:07 (UTC)
Scope: Athene cunicularia cunicularia (Southern burrowing owl)
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope I added it to the two Wikidata items --Gower (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Tyana chloroleuca-dorsal
still useful because we don't have anything better but Oppose per criterion 3 – completely unsharp wings, sorry --Gower (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Pogonopygia pavida-dorsal
Support good one --Gower (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Neohipparchus maculata-dorsal, male
Support very good --Gower (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Taractrocera danna-ventral
needs a crop please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose reasonable sharpness of wings not provided (per criterion 3); that one is also low/average quality, but slightly better in showing wings: File:Taractrocera danna 202918480.jpg --Gower (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-24 06:21 (UTC)
Scope: Praeexogyra hebridica var. elongata, fossil shell
Support useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-24 07:13 (UTC)
Scope: *Female head 1st century AD. - Musée des Amériques* - Auch**
Comment adding category for female head sculptures could be useful --Gower (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: sadly not done, no categories for female head sculptures added --Gower (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done This time it's good... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support good example of ancient art, with many categories :) --Gower (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-24 07:15 (UTC)
Scope: Descente de Croix - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful & Used. --Pierre André ^(talk) 08:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-24 07:16 (UTC)
Scope: Libation vessel - erect individual - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-24 09:38 (UTC)
Scope: Bell-ringer of restaurant La Cloche (1793), view from Place du Théâtre (Lille)
Reason: This is the only photograph of the bell ringer's sign on the façade of the restaurant "La Cloche" (1793), listed as a Beauregard Architectural Heritage site (Mérimée). -- Pierre André ^(talk)
not the only one , but one of at least four photographs, but Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment btw very small resolution and sadly, not in use --Gower (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: I added this file to the Rang de Beauregard article, best regards. --Pierre André ^(talk) 23:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:04 (UTC)
Scope: Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeon) male
Best in Scope excellent --Gower (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:05 (UTC)
Scope: Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeon) in flight, showing underside
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:07 (UTC)
Scope: Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeons) pair in flight, showing wing upperside
Support very good, probably only one photo within the scoper --Gower (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-24 11:39 (UTC)
Scope: *Shop sign the Bras d'Or, view from Rue Grande Chaussée (Lille)*
Used in: Global usage
Reason: This is the only photograph of the shop sign the Bras d'Or on the façade Rue grande chaussée, listed architectural Heritage in base Mérimée PA00107640. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Question @Pierre André Leclercq: could you fix strong color noise? It should be easy --Gower (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: Done correction of significant color noise. Best regards. --Pierre André ^(talk) 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Pierre André Leclercq: thanks, but it's still high color noise visible and image is less sharp now… --Gower (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: Done Color noise correction and sharpening of picture.--Pierre André ^(talk) 22:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support now better, acceptable --Gower (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-24 17:31 (UTC)
Scope: Nikon D3100
Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] no doubt – Best in Scope, perfect one! --Gower (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: E bailey (talk) on 2025-11-24 23:58 (UTC)
Scope: Shure SM57 microphone
Used in: en:Microphone, en:Shure SM57, en:Shure
Reason: I oriented the microphone in this photo to get a close view of the Shure SM57’s signature grille, showing the metal mesh capsule screen and the distinctive ribbed black outer ring that make this microphone recognizable. -- E bailey (talk)
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:15 (UTC)
Scope: Avenue Al Eucalypthus, Agdal-Riyad, Rabat, Morocco
Used in: wikidata:Q136759826
Reason: Shows the road, the eucalyptus trees and buildings. -- Tagooty (talk)
anything notable about this road? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Charlesjsharp: The École Belge de Rabat, an international school, is located on this road. This road is the southern boundary of an upscale residential area on the edge of Rabat. Roads in this area are named for plants and trees. I believe this road is of more than local interest. The definition of scope in COM:VIS is being broadened by VI reviewers in recent times. I think this will help to spread Wikimedia coverage of under-represented countries such as Morocco. Having well-categorised and rated images could drive articles and projects. --Tagooty (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yes, reviewers seem to promote any building, road, road sign, etc. I don't agree, I believe it destroys the purpose of VI, but I don't oppose as then everyone gets cross! Andd the tree is not native to Morocco. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Charlesjsharp: If a category exists with multiple images and some are used in Wiki projects, I think that is reason to consider a VI scope. BTW, eucalyptus was introduced in Morocco in the 1860s, it constitutes 40% of forest plantations and 5% of total forest area. It is now an important tree in the country. --Tagooty (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:29 (UTC)
Scope: Periglypta reticulata, right valve
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:47 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Nins - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:50 (UTC)
Scope: Owl-shaped stirrup-handled vase - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-25 09:21 (UTC)
Scope: Phimosus infuscatus (Bare-faced ibis) flock in flight
Support very good, only one within the scope --Gower (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-25 09:23 (UTC)
Scope: Progne tapera (Brown-chested martin)
Best in Scope, I added it as P18 to Wikidata --Gower (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-25 09:24 (UTC)
Scope: Turdus falcklandii magellanicus (Austral thrush)
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Wobbanight on 2025-11-24 17:58 (UTC)
Scope: 1845 Walnut Street in Philadelphia, PA.
Reason: Only image of this building on the commons. -- Wobbanight
Oppose only in scope but not fully visible, right side is clipped, perspective is unfavorable. @Wobbanight: please add the category for that building to the scope and put new candidates to the end of the list in the future --Gower (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-25 13:09 (UTC)
Scope: La Voix du Nord building in Lille, facade
Support Best in scope. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-26 06:28 (UTC)
Scope: Periglypta reticulata, left valve
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-26 06:33 (UTC)
Scope: *Achane of Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia* on an arachnid silk**
Support sophisticated scope (by adding that silk) but very good one, I like it --Gower (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-26 06:38 (UTC)
Scope: Buste reliquaire de saint Justin - Trésor de la cathédrale d’Auch
@Archaeodontosaurus: something happened in processing with the background; there are clear transitions between the grainy background and the smoothed one, from the very top of the reliquary and to the right. I think it's better if the grain is the same everywhere, what do you think? --Gower (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done Good suggestion (Click on the image to see the correction) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support fine, you went into smoothness :) now it's well done --Gower (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: it would be great if the photo got a category for reliquaries and saint: Category:Sculptures of Saint Justus in France and Category:Reliquary busts in France --Gower (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, I was able to make four corrections.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Geraki ^T_L^G on 2025-11-26 08:21 (UTC)
Scope: White Tower of Thessaloniki
Used in: el:Λευκός Πύργος
@Geraki: in scope you should put link to the Commons category, not Wikipedia article. Your nominated picture is QI and it's very good, but IMHO those have better lighting and closer to the typical daylight: 1 and 2 --Gower (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-26 09:53 (UTC)
Scope: Fulica armillata (Red-gartered coot)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-26 09:55 (UTC)
Scope: Fulica armillata (Red-gartered coot) on nest
Best in Scope very fine one --Gower (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-26 09:56 (UTC)
Scope: Fulica rufifrons (Red-fronted coot)
Best in Scope It's good that it's not on the water, because you can see more --Gower (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-26 17:36 (UTC)
Scope: Villa Medici (Rome) - Facade on the gardens side
not very high quality or detailed image but Best in Scope & useful & used :) --Gower (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-26 17:32 (UTC)
Scope: Interior of Martin Luther church in Chorzów, view towards the altar
Reason: Church has cultural heritage monument in Poland status, designed by Ludwig Böttger. The nominated photo presents a fully symmetrical and the widest view towards the altar among the uploaded photos. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] But both interiors underexposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-26 17:40 (UTC)
Scope: Interior of Assumption church in Chęciny, view towards the main altar
Reason: Gothic church, it was built in 14th century, has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-11-26 19:36 (UTC)
Scope: Nissan NV3500 - left rear view
Used in: de:Nissan NV
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-27 06:37 (UTC)
Scope: Periglypta exclathrata, right valve
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-27 06:35 (UTC)
Scope: 'Place de la République' seen from the square in front of Auch Cathedral.
Support good photo, probably only one within the scope --Gower (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-27 06:38 (UTC)
Scope: Stirrup-handled vase - Crouching figure - Musée des Amériques - Auch
I suggest adding: Category:Moche human-shaped ceramic vessels --Gower (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done Thank you: I also made 9 other corrections to images already submitted for this category... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-27 09:55 (UTC)
Scope: Cathartes aura jota (Chilean turkey vulture) in flight
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-27 09:57 (UTC)
Scope: Paroaria coronata (Red-crested cardinal)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-27 09:58 (UTC)
Scope: Lycalopex griseus (South American grey fox)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-27 11:39 (UTC)
Scope: *Jewellery shop A la Cloche d'Or* (Lille), view from rue des Manneliers**
Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

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

This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.