Jump to content

Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI status

[edit]

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination.

Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)

[edit]

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this: 

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.

Renomination

[edit]

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in 

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with 

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued Review

[edit]

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: 

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidates

[edit]

How to review an image

[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure

[edit]
  • On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
 You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
 You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  •  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
 You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period

[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

[edit]
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
61,105 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,128 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,399 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,578 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

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]

Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-19 11:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Rysy
Reason:
Rysy is the highest peak of Poland, its name comes from the deep diagonal furrow clearly visible in the photo. The photo is low-resolution (author: Andrzej Makarczuk), but it is still valuable and, in my opinion, best represents this mountain on Commons. -- Gower (talk)

 Question Hi Gower what do you think of this one? I think it is better. The photo you are suggesting was taken by Andrzej Makarczuk, and they don't seem to be active on Commons. Regards --Pierre André (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: thank you very much for your proposal. Your suggested photo isn't bad, but imho it's too bright, not very sharp, and doesn't show the furrow. Maybe I should change the scope to: Rysy, the top of the mountain? --Gower (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Best regards--Pierre André (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
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]

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".

https://muba-tourcoing.fr/EXPOSITIONS/Passees/Peindre-la-nature.-Paysages-impressionnistes-du-musee-d-Orsay --JackyM59 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
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)
Open for review.

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)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-21 10:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Tabernaemontana divaricata (Pinwheel flower) - fresh and withered flowers

 Question @Brihaspati: Why does the scope include Gujarat? Do the flowers there have any different characteristics than elsewhere? If not, perhaps we should remove it from the scope and keep just the taxon and the flower? --Gower (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gower: updated the scope.--Brihaspati (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (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]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mile (talk) on 2025-11-21 17:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Bab Bou Jeloud, Fez, Morocco (daylight photo)
Used in:
Morocco
Reason:
good view, colors, size -- Mile (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2025-11-21 18:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Marian column (Osek Monastery)
Reason:
most detailed image in scope -- August (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Gower (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Buiding of IV Lyceum in Bytom, exterior, view from the west
Reason:
One of the most famous monuments of Bytom and one of its symbols, an example of Upper Silesian Art Nouveau. From this side, the façade is visible. Tram lines are imho unavoidable because the building is located next to the tram stop. -- Gower (talk)

Scope changed from Buiding of IV Lyceum in Bytom, exterior to Buiding of IV Lyceum in Bytom, exterior, view from the west --Gower (talk) 09:13, 23 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".
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Gower (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 19:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Main post office in Bytom, exterior, view from the west
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, fine example of the Northern Neo-Renaissance in Poland, designed by Ewald von Rechenberg. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
E bailey (talk) on 2025-11-22 01:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Phoebastria irrorata in flight, dorsal
Used in:
en:Waved albatross
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Gower (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-22
Scope:
Callambulyx poecilus (Lesser Pink-and-Green Hawkmoth)-alive,dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Gower (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-22
Scope:
Barsine roseata-dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Gower (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-22 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Moerella pulchella, left valve

 Support very good and useful --Gower (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Hoplobatrachus litoralis
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Owl head pendants Culture mochica - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Ammonite with Pyrite pseudomorphs - Bully Calvados - France
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Shaman's scepter with a pommel decorated with a head surmounted by an ear of corn - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-22 09:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Rang des Arbalétriers.- House nr 2 Place Bleuets (Lille), front view
Reason:
Historical Arbalétriers row, dating from 1640, is a remarkable example of two-tone brick and stone construction. The basket-handle arches, alternating brick and stone, are adorned with diamond-point decoration. -- Pierre André (talk)
✓ Done correction of coordinates point n° 2 Place Bleuets. thanks for you advice.- --Pierre André (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 11:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Torfowe Kłyle ecological area
Reason:
Protected area in Poland, rare halophilic plants typical of brackish waters and seaside rush rushes occur here. Photo shows both the seashore and the thickets. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
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
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
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)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 12:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Irydion by Henryk Kuna, Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom
Reason:
Henryk Kuna is one of the best known sculptors from Poland. Sculpture shows actor Henryk Barwiński as Irydion, literary character from Zygmunt Krasiński play. Scope is limited to Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom, because another cast/copy of this sculpture is in Wrocław museum. It is possible that there are even more copies. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-11-22 17:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Copy of the Bronocice pot
Open for review.

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.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Clausilia rugosa ssp. parvula, shell
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
'Culot à l'escargot XVe' - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Peasant woman with a distaff - 'Musée des Amériques' - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Stirrup-handled vase - the god Ai Apaec - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

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
Open for review.

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]

Open for review.

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
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)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope:
Tyana chloroleuca-dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope:
Pogonopygia pavida-dorsal
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
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-24 06:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Praeexogyra hebridica var. elongata, fossil shell
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
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
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
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)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeon) male
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
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
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)
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]

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)
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)
  • @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
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Nins - Musée des Amériques - Auch
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
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)
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
Reason:
 Support Best in scope. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC) -- Gower (talk)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-26 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Periglypta reticulata, left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-26 06:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Achane of Taraxacum sect. Ruderalia on an arachnid silk
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-26 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Buste reliquaire de saint Justin - Trésor de la cathédrale d’Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Geraki TLG on 2025-11-26 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
White Tower of Thessaloniki
Used in:
el:Λευκός Πύργος
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-26 09:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Fulica armillata (Red-gartered coot)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-26 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Fulica armillata (Red-gartered coot) on nest
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-26 09:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Fulica rufifrons (Red-fronted coot)
Open for review.



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]
   
Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"