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

59,997 closed valued image candidates
Closed as		Nominations
Promoted	54,126 (90.2%)
Undecided	3,318 (5.5%)
Declined	2,553 (4.3%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-08-20 09:05 (UTC)
Scope: Statue of Leonardo da Vinci by Luigi Pampaloni, outside the Uffizi Gallery
Comment The framing would be much better, either on the statue alone or on the niche; because there is too much space at the top and bottom of the image.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-08-22 04:22 (UTC)
Scope: Bon Marée (ship, 1955) Starboard side.
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-22 04:40 (UTC)
Scope: The Annunciation. Bas-relief from the ambulatory of Auch Cathedral by Gervais Drouet
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-22 04:42 (UTC)
Scope: Lobelia speciosa flowers, in Garden of the Museum of the Americas in Auch
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment The linked category should be for the plant. The location is not important and should not be in the scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment The location is particularly important: This botanical garden only presents species originating from the American continent. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose There is no scientific name category for the species or even the genus. The colour is not mentioned in the scope. The species name is essential for VI, even for hybrids. And I don't think we want VIs for every exotic plant in a foreign garden. Where would that end? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Commons:Valued image candidates/(Auch) La chapelle des fonts baptismaŭ de l'Église Saint-Orens.jpg

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-08-22 04:58 (UTC)
Scope: Dreissena carinata, left valve
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-08-22 06:39 (UTC)
Scope: The Bitter Draught - Adriaen Brouwer
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-08-22 09:15 (UTC)
Scope: Lanius vittatus (Bay-backed Shrike) with food in Bhigwan
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose For birds, the nominated image must be the best image of the species, irrespective of location. The scope should not include the location, and the nom must be compared with all similar images of the species (close to 200 images in Commons). There is already a VI of this species, which is better than the nom image IMO. --Tagooty (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Tagooty is right. I cannot understand Archaeodontosaurus's support vote. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-08-22 10:54 (UTC)
Scope: City walls of Valenciennes Écluse du fossé Notre-Dame, East view
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-08-22 11:51 (UTC)
Scope: Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer - left rear view
Used in: de:Kombinationskraftwagen, de:VW ID.7
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-08-22 11:52 (UTC)
Scope: Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer - left front view
Used in: de:VW ID.7
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-08-22 12:51 (UTC)
Scope: Varanus salvator heads (Asian water monitor), closeup of head.
Comment Overcrowded category. It would be good to create a specific category and place similar images there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: I have changed the scope, thank you. - Kingshuk Mondal (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Question Is this photo not more valuable? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-08-22 13:08 (UTC)
Scope: City walls of Valenciennes Écluse des Repenties, East view
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-08-22 15:35 (UTC)
Scope: Kléber Elementary School in La Madeleine (Nord), view from rue Kléber
Used in: Global usage
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-22 19:36 (UTC)
Scope: Dmytrushky - Village council (view from the northwest)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-22 19:39 (UTC)
Scope: Ivanky, Uman Raion - School (view from the south)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-08-23 05:01 (UTC)
Scope: Sphaerium corneum (European fingernailclam), right valve
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-23 05:00 (UTC)
Scope: Chapelle Notre-Dame (21) de la cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch - Piscine (lavabo)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-23 05:03 (UTC)
Scope: Dianthus armeria (Deptford pink) inflorescence and flower
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-23 05:08 (UTC)
Scope: The ceiling of the chore of Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch by Pierre Levesville
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-23 09:21 (UTC)
Scope: Ivanky, Uman Raion - Kindergarten (view from the southwest)
Best in Scope --Ezarateesteban 20:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-23 09:20 (UTC)
Scope: Ivanky, Uman Raion - House of Culture (view from the northwest)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2025-08-23 09:44 (UTC)
Scope: Elk Hill, The Nilgiris - north face
Used in: en:List of peaks in the Western Ghats • wikidata:Q135639226
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-08-23 09:46 (UTC)
Scope: Phoenicurus ochruros (Black Redstart female) in Kaziranga National Park
Oppose For birds, the nominated image must be the best image of the species, irrespective of location. The scope should not include the location, and the nom must be compared with all similar images of the species. There are many 100s of such images of this species. There are already VIs of this species. If you think your image is better, there is a Most Valued Image review procedure to replace an existing VI with a better one. --Tagooty (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tagooty: how to find if there is a VI for a specie? Can a specie have more than one VI? Search for: "Phoenicurus ochruros" "valued images". This searches in sub-categories also. There can be only one VI for a scope, but there can be multiple scopes for a species. See the guidelines on VI scope and the section on animals and plants. Feel free to ask in case of any doubts. --Tagooty (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Tagooty: In the animal section "sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of behaviour". Can the sub-scopes be used for male or female of a specie? This page will disappear soon, so I've put my response on your talk page. --Tagooty (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Milseburg (talk) on 2025-08-23 13:06 (UTC)
Scope: Views of Schafkampspitze
Used in: de:Liste der Dreitausender in Nordtirol
Reason: There are hardly any photos on Commons that even show this mountain. -- Milseburg (talk)
Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: To the scope? It's the view from the northwest. But I think, it's the best view at all, since there is no other image having this mountain as the subjekt. --Milseburg (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Generally speaking, for a building, an animal, and a mountain there are several ways to visualize them. For a mountain the north face is different from the south face. There are at least two possible images that are useful. Just add to the scope: "view from the northwest" or "view from the southeast" for both to be eligible...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2025-08-23 13:22 (UTC)
Scope: The Nilgiri Library, Ooty - front and east side
Used in: en:Robert Chisholm (architect) • wikidata:Q135914407
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-08-23 16:43 (UTC)
Scope: Warrior (ship, 1960), stern view
Support Useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2025-08-23 20:46 (UTC)
Scope: Poster of The regeneration of worthless Dan
Support useful & used. --Kelly zhrm (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-08-24 04:09 (UTC)
Scope: Motor Tanker RIVAGE. ENI 2104768 Port and aft.
Best in Scope Useful --Pierre André ^(talk) 09:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-24 05:15 (UTC)
Scope: Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament - Stained glass windows (14) by Arnaud de Moles - Cathédrale d'Auch
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-24 05:19 (UTC)
Scope: "The Kiss of Judas" by Jean Douillé - Sainte Marie Cathedral of Auch
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-24 05:20 (UTC)
Scope: Interior view of the right transept of the Sainte-Marie Cathedral of Auch
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-24 12:38 (UTC)
Scope: Ivanky, Uman Raion - Village council (view from the northwest)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-24 12:46 (UTC)
Scope: Ivanky, Uman Raion - Church (view from the north)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Kelly zhrm (talk) on 2025-08-24 14:01 (UTC)
Scope: The Resurrection by Cecco del Caravaggio
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-25 05:03 (UTC)
Scope: The 3rd terrace of the monumental staircase Auch France
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-25 05:08 (UTC)
Scope: Ficus microcarpa 'Ginseng' (Indian laurel)
Support Useful and used —Nikride (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-08-25 05:11 (UTC)
Scope: *The main pulpit in the nave of the Sainte-Marie d'Auch Cathedral*
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-25 07:24 (UTC)
Scope: Krachkivka - House of Culture (view from the south)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Nikride (talk) on 2025-08-25 07:22 (UTC)
Scope: Krachkivka - Village council (view from the northwest)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Niklitov (talk) on 2025-08-25 12:54 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Bely Lighthouse — Bely Lighthouse, Saint Nicholas Chapel (2013) and seaplane.
Used in: Bely Lighthouse (ru), wikidata
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-08-25 16:52 (UTC)
Scope: Close-up of Shichifukujin in Asakusa Kannon Temple, view in Sensō-ji, Tokyo
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Anohthterwikipedian (talk) on 2025-08-26 01:46 (UTC)
Scope: Spongebob Squarepants (franchise)
Used in: Spongebob Squarepants
Reason: Perfect representation of Spongebob -- Anohthterwikipedian (talk)
Previous reviews
Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

hamster

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2011-12-10 22:24 (UTC)
Scope: Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster)
Support Excellent. All criteria met.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Support Seems to be the best one Kersti (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)`[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-04 16:28 (UTC)
Scope: Cricetus cricetus (European hamster)
Reason: replacing image of museum specimen -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Proposed image is definitely the better VI of the two. While this one shows the paws a little better, proposed image has better overall quality and more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope —Nikride (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope --Pierre André ^(talk) 10:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Acridotheres ginginianus nests

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Moheen ^{(keep talking)} on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope: Acridotheres ginginianus nests
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Moheen ^{(keep talking)} on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope: Acridotheres ginginianus nests
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-04-24 21:44 (UTC)
Scope: *Old tavern Au chat barré* avenue du Peuple Belge, Lille, view from Parc Louise de Bettignies**
Best in Scope--Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose In favour of the intended replacement. Light is inferior here. --Milseburg (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:15 (UTC)
Scope: Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)
Reason: Perspective is ok on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]
Support Light and colors are superior. --Milseburg (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-04-25 15:29 (UTC)
Scope: Renaissance house, rue de Gand 31, Lille, view from rue des Tours
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:29 (UTC)
Scope: Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-04-27 16:53 (UTC)
Scope: Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, 61-63, rue de la Monnaie (Vieux-Lille), view from 28 Rue de la Monnaie
Used in: Global usage
Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose The other picture is technically better and has a more beneficial image section. -- Wolf im Wald 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:09 (UTC)
Scope: Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, Lille
Reason: The left facade is visible from this view. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]
Support Higher sharpness level and better overview. -- Wolf im Wald 21:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

bats

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2015-08-05 13:39 (UTC)
Scope: Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)
Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)`[reply] Oppose In favour of the intended replacement. Quality is overall inferior here.--Milseburg (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Good picture but the other one is better. -- Wolf im Wald 21:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-05-06 15:53 (UTC)
Scope: Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)
Reason: I use a better camera these days! -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Support Quality is overall superior. --Milseburg (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Much better quality and colors! -- Wolf im Wald 21:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Karl Marx

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: ~ Moheen ^(talk) on 2015-12-20 06:40 (UTC)
Scope: Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in: see Global file usage
Support I have checked this submision against the six VI criteria. AS this is a studio image, the geocoding requirement is not neccessary. In my opinion this submission meets the other five critieria. I would however recommend changing the scope from "Portraits of Karl Marx" (plural) to "Portrait of Karl Marx". (Singular) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 14:28, December 20, 2015‎ (UTC) Done ~ Moheen ^(talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, There are several very good portrait paintings of KM. It is usual here to add "photographic portrait of KM".--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support --Raihan Rana (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: User:Giovanni Cardinali (talk) on 2025-07-08 08:20 (UTC)
Scope: Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in: see Global file usagecontent pages (optional) -->
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Peace Palace

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2016-12-15 16:57 (UTC)
Scope: Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in: fr:Palais de la Paix, fy:Fredespaleis, nl:Vredespaleis, ru:Дворец Мира
Comment, I think the scope category needs tidying first. There are similar images in the main category Category:Peace Palace (where this image is) and then many more in the sub-category Category:Exterior of the Peace Palace. DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Info Since the image in question is in both scopes (parent and daughter), I have removed the parent scope from the image, retaining the daughter scope. The visible text of the new scope is unchanged. See below. Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] Scope changed from Peace Palace (front view), The Hague to Peace Palace (front view), The Hague. Note the underlying category has been changed, not the visible text. --Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (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". Support, better now - useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 23:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2025-08-03 21:00 (UTC)
Scope: Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in: en:Andrew Carnegie, es:Arquitectura de los Países Bajos
Reason: Nearly similar view but higher detail level. -- Wolf im Wald
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Doris Day

View promotion
Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2015-03-27 10:37 (UTC)
Scope: Doris Day
Info Studio shot, so no geocoding. Yann (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support This picture is better. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support I don't like her films, but the picture is okay. --Palauenc05 (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support --Mile (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support The better image Liam987 `^(talk)` 01:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: -1 2. DorisDay-midnightlace.jpg: +5 <-- => File:Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: Declined File:Day-midnightlace.jpg: Promoted <-- --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: JayCubby (talk) on 2025-08-07 01:29 (UTC)
Scope: Doris Day
Used in: extensive
Reason: Good resolution reproduction of a useful studio portrait. -- JayCubby (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

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.