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
61,355 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,349 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,412 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,594 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-08 09:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Lophonetta specularioides (Crested duck) swimming
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-08 23:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops apiaster (European bee-eater) defecating
✓ Done @Gower -- Giles Laurent (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2025-12-09 08:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Takht Sri Damdama Sahib, view from north-east
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-09 09:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Hylocharis chrysura (Gilded hummingbird)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2025-12-09 10:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Gurdwara Saheb, Hyderabad, view from north-west
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-10 23:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Fire hall in Calico Ghost Town, view from Ghost Town Rd, Yermo, (CA)

 Support Useful.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-11 06:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Charpentieria itala ssp. braunii, shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-11 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceramic - Mating scene - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-11 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
'My father' by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-11 10:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Progne chalybea macrorhamphus (Grey-breasted martin) showing chest feathers

 Comment Showing chest feathers is not a behavioral attribute. Suggest you consider a scope of best of Progne chalybea macrorhamphus sub-species (male or female if you can tell). --GRDN711 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The VI guidelines you quote, Charles, are clear but not the way you have chosen to interpret them. It refers to the situation where part of the bird, such as the head, fills the frame by design and intention of the photographer; not when you have a full image of the species where you selectively identify a part as a sub-scope.
I think you have a good image. If you would consider a shorter scope for nomination of this image such as the best of the "Progne chalybea macrorhamphus (Grey-breasted martin)" sub-species, I think it would have merit. A reference to the chest feathers can be placed in the image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Charles would like to change the scope to a nomination of just the sub-species - "Progne chalybea macrorhamphus (Grey-breasted martin)", that would be perfect. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GRDN711: No, there's a misunderstanding. The bird can be viewed from the side, the dorsal side, or the ventral side. These are different scopes that are acceptable; "showing chest feathers" is an acceptable scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I accept lateral, dorsal and ventral views are acceptable sub-scopes for a bird species.
IMO “showing chest feathers” goes over the edge of being too narrow and descriptive. What about tail feathers, wing feathers, pin feathers, face feathers? All birds except newborn chicks have them. Should there be allowable sub-scopes for five (at least!) feather options in addition (or in combination?) with the three views?
I suppose if you needed a sub-scope here, “ventral view” would work. I personally think this full-body image has more potential than that. A scope of "Progne chalybea macrorhamphus (Grey-breasted martin)" would place the nomination at a higher taxonomy level of being the best of the sub-species. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 12:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-11 10:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Phrygilus gayi caniceps (Grey-hooded sierra finch) female with nesting material
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-11 10:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Phrygilus gayi caniceps (Grey-hooded sierra finch) female taking flight with nesting material
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 12:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-11 12:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Grave of Bobby Fischer

 Support Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-12-11 17:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Aua dil Mer Waterfall Above the Panixersee (Lag da Pigniu).
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-11 18:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Evangelical cemetery in Siemianowice Śląskie, main path
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-11 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
12 Trafalczyka Street in Siemianowice Śląskie, southeastern elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, part of listed Huta Jedność housing estate. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-11 18:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Bracka Company hospital building in Siemianowice Śląskie, southern elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland (d:Q109923175). -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-12-12
Scope:
Anachrostis rufula - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-12-12
Scope:
Mustilizans hepatica - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-12-12
Scope:
Laciniodes denigrata - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-12 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Asaphis deflorata (Gaudy Asaphis), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-12 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase in the shape of a llama's head - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-12 06:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Nature morte au panier de framboises - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-12 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Notre Dame Cathedral - South Side - Tournai – Belgique
Used in:
16 uses
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-12 08:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Berck International Kite Festival – France
Used in:

wikidata

wikidata

29 uses
Reason:
The photo gives an overview of the event and situates it with the town of Berck in the background. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Psilopogon asiaticus (Blue-throated Barbet) - making hole for nesting.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Emberiza lathami (Crested Bunting) male - calling.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Ficedula sapphira (Sapphire Flycatcher) - male in non breeding plumage.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-12 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Chlorostilbon lucidus berlepschi (Glittering-bellied emerald) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-12 10:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Pardirallus sanguinolentus landbecki (Plumbeous rail)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-12 10:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Geothlypis velata (Southern yellowthroat) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 11:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Broštica- aerial view
Reason:
Most representative picture of the village -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Dolno Kosovrasti
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  • Kiril Simeonovski - It is not a VI guideline, but it has been the tradition for Valued Image nominations, that we only nominate 3 per day. That reduces workload for reviewers so that your images receive a VI review.
 Question For clarification - are Dolno Kosovrasti and Gorno Kosovrasti, two separate villages? --GRDN711 (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are separate villages, and there are separate Wikipedia articles (see Dolno Kosovrasti and Gorno Kosovrasti). I was looking for a limit of the number of nominations and carefully went through the nomination rules, but I couldn't find anything and thought there's no limit. Thank you for pointing out this. I will follow the practice of nominating no more than 3 per day from now on. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 11:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Gorno Kosovrasti
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 10:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Assumption of the Holy Virgin (Nikuljane)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This is the church of the 14-th century Zabel Monastery, which is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Jesus (Arbanaško)
Used in:
Црква „Вознесение Христово“ - Арбанашко (Macedonian Wikipedia), Church of the Ascension of Jesus (Arbanaško) (Wikidata)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This church was bult in 1938, and it is notable for the nice use of stone. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Presentation of the Theotokos (Obednik)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1956 on the foundations of an older church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:42 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Velmevci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This church is notable for its interesting decoration of the roof. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:40 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Elijah Church (Velmevci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1838, and it is a very good example of the revival church architectural style. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:33 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Tresonče)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. During the Ottoman period, Christians went to the mountain forests above the villages to pray, and this church was built on a place where people prayed in the past. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Manastir)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church's construction began in the 11th century and it was completed in the 13th century. It is a very good example of the Middle Byzantine Architecture. The church is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Sts. Constantine and Helena (Vakuf)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. Orthodox churches are usually built on hills, which gives them dominant position that overlooks the place. This church is unique as it was built on an elevated platform that gives it a dominant position. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:17 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Old Church (Šopsko Rudare)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. This is a very old church from the 16th century, and it is listed as a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:13 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Prikovci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church has an interesting architecture as its base is a square with a polygonal dome on the top. Churches with domes typically follow the cross-in-square pattern, which is not the case here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Prikovci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in the 19th century. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:06 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George of Kratovo Church (Kratovo)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1925, and its architecture is a blend of multiple styles. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Kratovo River
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the river. The passes through the town of Kratovo and is famous for its numerous bridges. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 09:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Popova Kula
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the winery. The picture nicely depicts a building of a winery. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment Too dark (underexposed). --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-12 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Negotino power plant
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the power plant. The power plant has significant contribution to the country's energy production. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-12-12
Scope:
Arichanna plagifera - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-12 16:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Elminia longicauda (African blue flycatcher) male, ventral view
  •  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good image but as described above in the nomination by Charles, a sub-scope of “showing chest feathers” goes over the edge of being too narrow and descriptive. One of your other images is already VI for the species (personally like this one). Suggest species sub-scopes of "male, ventral view" would work here if you are willing to change the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @GRDN711 -- Giles Laurent (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-12 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Building of IV Lyceum in Chorzów, view from the west
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-12 21:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Old Town hall in Chorzów, northeastern elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-12 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Workshop of Huta Królewska power plant, southern elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-13 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Asaphis deflorata (Gaudy Asaphis), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-13 06:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Curved-backed point - 2 views of the same specimen
Reason:
Best specimen in this series. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-13 06:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Earthenware dish bearing the coat of arms of Antoine Mégret d'Etigny - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-13 08:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz 208D - right rear view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz T 1
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-13 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Hedwig church in Chorzów, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Claus, costume
Used in:
Wikidata
Reason:
Confetti and sparks in the foreground add to the image's uniqueness, adding vibrancy and richness to the overall composition. -- Pangalau (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Kapelusz exhibition hall in Chorzów, view from the southwest
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Roadside chapel "u Koconia" in Ujsoły, front view
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Hymenops perspicillatus perspicillatus (Spectacled tyrant) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Zonotrichia capensis chilensis (Rufous-collared sparrow)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-13 12:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Molothrus bonariensis (Shiny cowbird) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-12-13
Scope:
Chitoria sordida - ventral
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 19:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Infectious diseases building, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, south-west view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 19:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Main building, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, west view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Main building, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, north-west view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Berufsfeuerwehr Bozen, front view of fire station
@Charlesjsharp: It is the only professional fire station in all of South Tyrol (as opposed to voluntary and company fire departments) and responsible for the entire province with over half a million of inhabitants. IMO, this exceeds local interest. --Aciarium (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Apologies, I don't know why I forgot to add it. --Aciarium (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-13 21:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Hörsaalgebäude (Montanuniversität Leoben), south view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-13 23:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Island Belle I (ship, 1988), bow view.

Best in scope, but not used...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-14 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Tonganaella perna (Perna Tellin), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-14 06:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Terellia winthemi - female on Cirsium vulgare
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-14 06:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of a woman with an Indian shawl. - 'Musée des Amériques' - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-14 11:31 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Kazimierza Merkleina Street in Władysławowo, view from the northwest
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-14 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Żyglin, front elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-14 11:34 (UTC)
Scope:
49A building in Gdańsk, interior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Mural "Nie spierdolcie tego" means "Don't fuck this up". -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-14 14:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Guira guira (Guira cuckoo) in flight
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-14 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Spheniscus humboldti (Humboldt penguin)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-14 14:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Larus dominicanus (Kelp gull) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-14 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Subaru Baja - left rear view
Used in:
de:Subaru Baja, de:Subaru Legacy
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-14 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
KGM Tivoli - left rear view
Used in:
de:KGM Tivoli
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-14 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Expedition (fourth generation) Max - left rear view
Used in:
de:Ford Expedition
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-12-15 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Inflorescence of a Rostrinucula dependens
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase decorated with a parrot Culture Chimù - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful & Used.-- Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Marine by Joseph Vernet- Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Tonganaella perna (Perna Tellin), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-15 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Phylloscopus fuscatus (Dusky Warbler) - eating.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-15 07:10 (UTC)
Scope:
1 Doki Street in Gdańsk, view from the south
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument of Poland; building where August Agreements were signed. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-15 07:24 (UTC)
Scope:
47A building in Gdańsk, southern elevation
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument of Poland. Part of Cesarska Shipyard in Gdańsk. More documentation: link -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-15 07:31 (UTC)
Scope:
150A building in Gdańsk, view from the south
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument of Poland. Former fire station, part of Cesarska Shipyard in Gdańsk. More documentation: link -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-12-15 09:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Main entrance of the Esztergom Cathedral
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-15 11:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Entrance to the Golden Temple of Dambulla (Sri Lanka), East view from Sath Paththini Devalaya
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"