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

61,751 closed valued image candidates
Closed as		Nominations
Promoted	55,711 (90.2%)
Undecided	3,441 (5.6%)
Declined	2,599 (4.2%)

New valued image nominations

View promotion
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:59 (UTC)
Scope: Patagioenas maculosa (Spot-winged pigeon)
Best in Scope undoubtedly --Gower (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2025 (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) 07:03, 26 December 2025 (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)
Comment I would prefer that one: File:Црква „Св. Никола“ - Зрзе 5.jpg --Gower (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done @Gower: I've changed the nominated picture. Thanks for finding it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] 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 2025-12-29 10:22 (UTC)
Scope: 4 Grzegórzecka Street in Kraków
best in scope but it is worth VI? It's only in municipal register (in Kraków we have 6306 objects in it). --Gower (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-12-29 11:52 (UTC)
Scope: Access to the Ruwanwelisaya Stupa, Anuradhapura (district)
Comment The stupa is UNESCO object, but depicted modern and not important advertising gate to it isn't. It is worth VI? --Gower (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done clarification provided on the scope --Pierre André ^(talk) 17:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-29 14:46 (UTC)
Scope: Academic dress in Australia
No reason for this to be more valuable than several other images of the lady. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have limited the scope to Australian academic dress only. --Pangalau (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Not a well-formulated scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Pangalau: in the new scope the image represents only small part of academic dress, unfortunately --Gower (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Understood. I would not mind if this nomination were declined, but I think there may be other scopes that would be more suitable. The subject appears rather niche to me. --Pangalau (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Sorry, but I don't see a scope that would be suitable for this image. VI is a difficult competition; you have to persevere... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-30 05:09 (UTC)
Scope: David Coulthard in 2025
No reason for this to be more valuable than several other images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] I have limited the scope to the 2025 calendar year only. --Pangalau (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Only a few people are notable enough for multiple VIs, and DC isn't one of them. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-12-30 05:52 (UTC)
Scope: *Typical rootstock of a Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea'.* (red beech in december.)**
@Agnes Monkelbaan: I'm not convinced that scope must contain phrase: "Ecological Monument Laarmantuin (Arboretum)." in this case. --Gower (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Gower Thank you for your feedback. We've included the series of tree rootstocks in the Arboretum of the oldest Hortus botanicus in the Netherlands and placed it in Category:Laarmantuin (Arboretum). We could remove the reference to the Hortus botanicus, but what do you propose?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Agnes Monkelbaan: I meant that it is good if the scope refers either to the taxon itself or, for example, to a specific veteran tree (d:Q811534) --Gower (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Gower Thanks for your explanation. I've adjusted the scope. If I understand correctly, it should be fine now.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Agnes Monkelbaan: scope is fine but category in scope is for another taxon: "Fagus sylvatica 'Purpurea' in the Netherlands". --Gower (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Gower Due to the confusion I probably made a mistake and it should be fine now.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment now scope is imho OK, but we need someone who would look at hundreds of photos in it, especially from Germany: Cat tree. --Gower (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I think it concerns an important detail of the red beech, namely the specific rootstock and there are not many photos of that.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-31 08:31 (UTC)
Scope: Krakowska Street in Kraków
Comment @Igor123121: , not geocoded, maybe it's good to add "aerial view" to the scope? Weather was very cloudy so maybe you can increase brightness and contrast from raw? --Gower (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-31 11:57 (UTC)
Scope: Spialia orbifer (Orbed red-underwing skipper) underside
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Julian Lupyan (talk) on 2025-12-31 17:14 (UTC)
Scope: Friezes in Rhodes
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-12-31 18:03 (UTC)
Scope: Mahamayuri in Gangaramaya'Temple, Colombo (Sri Lanka)
Reason: Mahamayuri means 'great peahen'. Known as the Queen of the secret sciences and the 'Godmother of Buddha'. She is the only sculpture depicted in Gangaramaya Temple, one of Colombo's most famous Buddhist centers, which attracts many worshippers every day. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-01-01 06:35 (UTC)
Scope: Isognomon isognomum (Pacific Tree Oyster), right valve
Support Useful and used -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-01 06:14 (UTC)
Scope: Vase Portrait still in storage 998.01.007 - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-01 06:32 (UTC)
Scope: Larinus turbinatus on Cirsium vulgare - top view
Support Useful and used -- Giles Laurent (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-01 10:43 (UTC)
Scope: Madoqua damarensis (Damara Dik-dik) male
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-01 10:43 (UTC)
Scope: Antidorcas marsupialis (Springbok) juvenile, stotting
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-01 10:44 (UTC)
Scope: Antidorcas marsupialis (Springbok) male, frontal view
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:05 (UTC)
Scope: Muschampia tessellum (Tessellated skipper) dorsal
Oppose good photo, but we have better images in scope with wings in more flat position, sorry --Gower (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:06 (UTC)
Scope: Trachypithecus delacouri (Delacour's langur)
Best in Scope & tail is well shown --Gower (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:07 (UTC)
Scope: Trachypithecus delacouri (Delacour's langur) head
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:34 (UTC)
Scope: Langham Hotel, London
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:46 (UTC)
Scope: Nativity of the Virgin Mary church interior in Miasteczko Śląskie, view towards the main altar
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland with article in Polish Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful and used. --Igor123121 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:48 (UTC)
Scope: Interior of Holy Cross church in Bytom, view towards the main altar
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland with article in Polish Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-01 12:41 (UTC)
Scope: Interior of Saint Barbara church in Gliwice, view towards the main altar
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland with article in 2 Wikis. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful and used. --Igor123121 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-01 16:43 (UTC)
Scope: 5 Królewska Street in Kraków
Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-01 16:42 (UTC)
Scope: Chapel of the Resurrection of Christ in Kraków
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-01 16:42 (UTC)
Scope: Rakowicki Cemetery Gate
Best in Scope due to the widest view --Gower (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-01-02 06:40 (UTC)
Scope: Isognomon isognomum (Pacific Tree Oyster), left valve
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-02 06:50 (UTC)
Scope: Beosus maritimus - Dorsal view
Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] But I don't think we need to add Authority in scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment Yes Charles is right, it's disturbing, it's not a good idea. I removed it.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-02 06:52 (UTC)
Scope: Portrait Vase with Stirrup Handle 005.19.002 - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Usefull and used --Ercé (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Yes Archaeodontosaurus, but I think these artefacts should indicate material, country/place of origin and date/period in scope to be truly valuable. e.g. Moche pottery, Peru, 9th Century. The musuem is actually less important and could be transient. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Simply click on the image for full details. The Musée des Amérique in Auch is the second largest collection of South American artifacts in France, after the Musée du Quai Branly. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] The project has moved so far away from the VI guidelines "[Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way]", I don't suppose it matters; anything goes now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment That's absolutely true: that's why a work of art from a civilization that died out several centuries ago, coming from a major museum, will enhance the prestige of VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Romainbehar (talk) on 2026-01-02 07:15 (UTC)
Scope: Saint François d'Assise, statue de Jean-Marie Bonnassieux dans la cathédrale Saint-Jean de Lyon
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-02 08:36 (UTC)
Scope: Catalpa bignonioides (southern catalpa), wood, Cross-section
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-02 08:42 (UTC)
Scope: Genista linifolia (Mediterranean broom), seeds, dried specimen
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-02 09:23 (UTC)
Scope: Front of Lewarde Castle - Nord - France
Used in: wikidata
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-02 10:23 (UTC)
Scope: Trachypithecus germaini (Germain's langur) juvenile
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-02 10:24 (UTC)
Scope: Trachypithecus germaini (Germain's langurs)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-02 10:25 (UTC)
Scope: Trachypithecus germaini (Germain's langur) female
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-01-02 13:31 (UTC)
Scope: Palazzo Senatorio (Rome) at night - exterior
Comment @Sebring12Hrs: we don't have daytlight VI for Palazzo Senatorio yet, it could be more useful. --Gower (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Euuhh ok, but is it the best image that shows this building, even by night ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Unless the night lighting itself is very valuable, we wouldn't normally have nightime VI scopes. Of course, if a night image is better than all the daytime ones it can be promoted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Charlesjsharp: And why ??? There is no rules to don't do that. We have nightime VI promoted images already. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] I tried to say that it is Ok if tyhis is 'the best image that shows this building, even by night'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2026-01-02 15:41 (UTC)
Scope: Ganesha, view in the temple of Gangaramaya.- (Colombo)
Reason: Ganesh is also called Vighneshvara, "Lord of Obstacles," meaning he is capable of removing obstacles. He is the only sculpture depicted in Gangaramaya Temple, one of Colombo's most famous Buddhist centers, which attracts many worshippers every day. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-02 15:36 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Leonard chapel in Chęciny, interior
Reason: 17th-century chapel, cultural heritage monument in Poland -- Gower (talk)
Best in Scope --Igor123121 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-02 15:46 (UTC)
Scope: Tar container in Ruda Śląska before restoration
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland (d:Q30065195) -- Gower (talk)
Best in Scope --Igor123121 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-02 15:42 (UTC)
Scope: 36 Władysława Łokietka Street in Chęciny, exterior
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland, originally from 1822. -- Gower (talk)
Best in Scope --Igor123121 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-02 18:02 (UTC)
Scope: Kraków Złocień train station
best in scope, but I don't know if railway stops are good for VI? --Gower (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-02 18:02 (UTC)
Scope: 3 Szpitalna Street in Kraków, portal
Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment The images of the same building do not seem to match between the one presented and the one on Wikidada...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Igor123121: change scope, please, to Floriańska --Gower (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose until scope is not changed --Gower (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: I saw you changed it yourself, so what do you expect from me regarding this? :) --Igor123121 (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-02 18:00 (UTC)
Scope: Adam Stefan Sapieha Monument in Kraków
Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-01-03 06:44 (UTC)
Scope: Spondylus butleri, juvenile, right valve
Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-03 06:42 (UTC)
Scope: Double-bellied vase with a panpipe player - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-03 06:56 (UTC)
Scope: Miniature drum Culture Chimù - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-03 07:57 (UTC)
Scope: Salvia rosmarinus (rosemary), wood, Cross-section
Support very good and useful --Gower (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-03 08:01 (UTC)
Scope: Petrocallis pyrenaica, seeds, dried specimen
Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-01-03 08:46 (UTC)
Scope: South-west view of Saint-Nicolas Church in Coutances - Manche - France
Used in: wikidata
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2026-01-03 12:58 (UTC)
Scope: Sidi R'bat beach, Shtouka Ait Baha Province, Morocco
Used in: en:Sidi R'bat • wikidata:Q136676290
Comment hard to choose the best image in that case --Gower (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-03 13:45 (UTC)
Scope: Mungos mungo (Banded mongoose), lateral view
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-03 13:46 (UTC)
Scope: Mungos mungo (Banded mongoose), standing
Support Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-01-03 13:47 (UTC)
Scope: Mungos mungo (Banded mongooses), playing
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-01-03 16:45 (UTC)
Scope: *Bottom of a Lepista nuda* Fallen over (Lepista nuda) decaying on a compost heap.**
Comment Imho too fancy/sophisticated scope, why not just "Lepista nuda, cap underside"? --Gower (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-03 14:28 (UTC)
Scope: Macaca fascicularis (Long-tailed macaque) male head
Support Useful and used --Igor123121 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-03 14:29 (UTC)
Scope: Macaca fascicularis (Long-tailed macaque) female head
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-01-03 14:30 (UTC)
Scope: Macaca fascicularis (Long-tailed macaque) female feeding baby
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2026-01-03 17:55 (UTC)
Scope: Statue of seated Buddha, view at Lankatilaka Viharaya
Used in: Global usage
Reason: QI and geolocated image image -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-03 19:09 (UTC)
Scope: Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Mysłowice, interior, view towards the main altar
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful and used -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-03 19:17 (UTC)
Scope: Interior of Holy Spirit Church in Bytom, view towards the main altar
Reason: Unusual octagonal church from 17th century, cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful and used -- Giles Laurent (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-03 19:22 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Margaret of Antioch church in Bytom, exterior
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful and used --Igor123121 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-04 00:17 (UTC)
Scope: Stradomska Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-04 00:16 (UTC)
Scope: Kazimierz Town Hall in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Igor123121 (talk) on 2026-01-04 00:15 (UTC)
Scope: Wolnica Square in Kraków
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-01-04 06:38 (UTC)
Scope: Spondylus butleri, juvenile, right valve
Support Usefull and used --Ercé (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-04 06:41 (UTC)
Scope: Vase - Squelette musicien avec un tambour - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Usefull and used --Ercé (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-04 06:44 (UTC)
Scope: Ulysses and Nausicaa after Michele Desubleo - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-04 07:13 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Anthony chapel in Piekary Śląskie, exterior
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article in Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-04 07:21 (UTC)
Scope: St. Hedwig's Church in Zabrze, exterior
Reason: Unique polygonal wooden church, cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-04 07:53 (UTC)
Scope: Romantic ruins in Orzech, exterior
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-04 08:25 (UTC)
Scope: Bupleurum, seeds, dried specimen
Question @Ercé: why scope is limited to the genus, not species in that case? --Gower (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-04 08:33 (UTC)
Scope: Anacampseros filamentosa, seeds, dried specimen
Support very good and useful --Gower (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: DimiTalen on 2026-01-04 09:46 (UTC)
Scope: Soap bars of traditional olive oil soaps
Used in: Wikidata:Q34396 and several Wikipedia pages for 'Soap'
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2026-01-04 11:39 (UTC)
Scope: Maison dite Chalet Marie-Pierre, view from route des Mouettes (Ault)
Used in: Global usage
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in France -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: *KuldeepBurjBhalaike* ^(Talk) on 2026-01-04 16:28 (UTC)
Scope: Central Gurdwara Saheb, Hyderabad, view from north-west
Previous reviews ... The latest review follows here
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2026-01-04 16:53 (UTC)
Scope: Maison dite Les Coucous in Ault, view from route des Mouettes (Ault)
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in France - -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Support useful, good light --Gower (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-04 15:13 (UTC)
Scope: St. George’s Church (Lazarovci), exterior
Reason: I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] @Kiril Simeonovski: I suggest adding "exterior" to the scopes in those church cases --Gower (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Done I’ve added it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-04 16:13 (UTC)
Scope: St. Elijah Church (Vraneštica), exterior
Reason: I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Best in Scope, but @Kiril Simeonovski: I recommend adding "exterior" to the scope --Gower (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Done I’ve added it. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-01-04 16:17 (UTC)
Scope: St. Elijah Church (Čelopeci), exterior
Reason: I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Comment good photo, but doesn't show whole temple --Gower (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: *KuldeepBurjBhalaike* ^(Talk) on 2026-01-05 04:09 (UTC)
Scope: Murals at Guru Ram Rai Darbar Sahib (only picture of these murals)
Comment @Kuldeepburjbhalaike: scope should be without "(only picture of these murals)" (you can put it to the "reason section") and now you nominated two images with the same scope so it must be changed and clarified --Gower (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: *KuldeepBurjBhalaike* ^(Talk) on 2026-01-05 04:08 (UTC)
Scope: Murals at Guru Ram Rai Darbar Sahib (only picture of these murals)
Comment @Kuldeepburjbhalaike: scope should be without "(only picture of these murals)" (you can put it to the "reason section") and now you nominated two images with the same scope so it must be changed and clarified --Gower (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-01-05 06:26 (UTC)
Scope: Cochlodina orthostoma, shell
Support Usefull and used --Ercé (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-05 06:22 (UTC)
Scope: Sonnailles - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Usefull and used --Ercé (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-01-05 06:25 (UTC)
Scope: Decorative or pectoral plaque Tairona Culture (Colombia) - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-05 08:57 (UTC)
Scope: Habsburg Palace in Rajcza, exterior, view from the south
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland with own article in Wikipedia. -- Gower (talk)
Support Usefull and used --Ercé (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-05 08:56 (UTC)
Scope: Interior of Dietrichstein Palace in Wodzisław Śląski, first floor
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland, serves as museum. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2026-01-05 08:54 (UTC)
Scope: Lasocki Palace in Kraków, exterior, view from the south
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-05 09:06 (UTC)
Scope: Erodium foetidum, seeds, dried specimen
Support good and only one in scope, of course useful --Gower (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2026-01-05 09:13 (UTC)
Scope: Ornithogalum nutans (drooping star-of-Bethlehem), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Closed valued image candidates

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.