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
61,556 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,540 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,419 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,597 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Patagioenas maculosa (Spot-winged pigeon)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-20 12:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Kratovo River in Kratovo
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the river. The river passes through the town of Kratovo and is famous for its numerous bridges. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-20 12:34 (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. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-20 12:38 (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. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-20 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Numenius hudsonicus (Hudsonian whimbrel)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mari-massu (talk) on 2025-12-21 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:

- Photo reproductions of the painting referred to as Still Life with a Self-portrait by Pieter Claesz in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum

- Photo reproductions of still life paintings with a reflected self-portrait
Reason:
The official photograph of this painting at the museum's website. It has the highest resolution and sharpness when compared to other images of this painting which are blurred or overexposed. -- Mari-massu (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-21 06:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Spondylitis / 'Mullu' Chancay culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used (I think it is probably a Spondylus calcifer Carpenter, 1857) --Llez (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-21 08:50 (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. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-21 08:53 (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. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-21 09:08 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Selce)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  • @Gower: Yes, it’s a ‘pilgrimage place’ where liturgies take place regularly as it’s the only church in the village (note that the church has an apse containing the altar that is used for worshipping rituals). The village has always been inhabited by a majority of Turks (Sunni Muslims) and a minority of Macedonians (Orthodox Christians), so it used to have a mosque long before the church was built in 2015. Furthermore, the foundation stone of the church was consecrated by the Metropolitan of the Diocese of Bregalnica of the Macedonian Orthodox Church Hilarion, and the church is documented in reliable sources so it’s notable enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Kiril Simeonovski: , thanks for explanation; pilgrimage place for me is something like Fatima or Lourdes, not ordinary village church. I've read article about that church in Wikipedia and notability wasn't proven in my opinion, sorry. Foundation stone is almost always blessed by someone important. --Gower (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gower: I think you’re trying to apply criteria based on superficial and out-of-context comparisons to Catholic churches. In Orthodox Christianity, every church with an altar (and thereby apse) has regular liturgies and is used for weddings, baptisms and funerals. As this church is dedicated to Saint Demetrious, there’s also a regular gathering on his feast day (note that there’s a secondary building with a refectory in the church’s yard that is used for celebrating feast days). The rule that ‘Not every church is worh a Valued Image scope’ in this context applies to Orthodox Christian chapels (for instance, this, this and this) that are minor isolated religious buildings and are not worth stand-alone Wikipedia articles. The phrase ‘ordinary village church’ sounds harsh and insulting. People from vilages are Christians in the same way as people from towns, so their churches cannot be diminished just because they’re located in villages. Moreover, you shouldn’t forget that Macedonia was part of a Muslim country until 1912 and an atheist country from 1945 to 1991, so churches in many places were built for the first time after 1991 and, therefore, the year of construction is completely irrelevant. If you think that notability wasn’t proven in the Wikipedia article, you’re encouraged to nominate it for deletion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Kiril Simeonovski: , thanks for your further explanation; I'm from village so phrase ‘ordinary village church’ is neutral to me; in Poland we have tens of thousands of ‘ordinary village churches’ so I look at it from my Polish point of view. Every Catholic parish church also "has regular liturgies and is used for weddings, baptisms and funerals" and a regular gathering on patron's feast day. In Polish Wikipedia article about that kind of church, no matter Orthodox or Catholic, would be probably deleted (btw, we have strong group of deletionist Wikimedians). Let's wait for other voices in that nomination. I won't have a problem if this good and valuable photo gets VI. --Gower (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SebastianBlumeArt (talk) on 2025-12-21 15:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Fittonia gigantea, abaxial leaf venation
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 21:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Kraków Główny train station aerial view

@Archaeodontosaurus: ✓ Done Igor123121 (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Galeria Krakowska
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-22 08:07 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Burilovci), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church built in the 9th century in the middle Byzantine style, and it is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-22 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:St. Nicholas Church (Burilovci), altar
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the altar. The church is famous for its relatively well-preserved frescos from the 14th century, especially in the altar. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-22 08:15 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Kozjak)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. It was built in the 9th or 10th century and is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-22 16:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz W18 in Gangaramaya Temple (Colombo), left front view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Rolls-Royce Twenty in the Gangaramaya Temple (Colombo), front view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:30 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Bankowa Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, former bank, now university building. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Holy Trinity church in Wodzisław Śląski, exterior
Reason:
Medieval church, cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:34 (UTC)
Scope:
7 Bałtycka Street in Hel, view from the west
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument, former house of the lighthouse keeper. -- Gower (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-22 18:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Façade of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Grace in Cambrai - Nord - France
Used in:

wikidata

wikidata
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-22 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Leucocarbo magellanicus (Magellanic cormorant) showing chest feathers

 Comment As its Latin name suggests, the bird is black and white. The blue color of its plumage is incorrect. It's easy to correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-22 20:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Leucocarbo magellanicus (Magellanic cormorant) showing back feathers
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-22 20:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Thamnophilus ruficapillus (Rufous-capped antshrike) showing chest feathers
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Incendie au crépuscule by Jean-Louis Rouméguère - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Siku - Intermediate Periode Reeds and textile fibers - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Annachlamys striatula, orange form, right valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Istana Darussalam
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:26 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Slepče)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Zrze)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:31 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Stephen's Church (Konče)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-23 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Dendrocygna bicolor (Fulvous whistling ducks) pair with chicks
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-23 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Netta peposaca (Rosy-billed pochard) male
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-23 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Jacana jacana jacana (Wattled jacana) with eggs
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-23 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Temple of the Tooth, Sitting Buddha statues, view in Mahanuwara Kandy, (Sri Lanka)
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Devil's Wall, a natural rarity near Bogoslovec
Reason:
This is the most representative image of this rock formation. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Pilav Tepe, a volcanic cone near Šopur
Reason:
This is the most representative image of this volcanic cone. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Srbinovo Bridge
Reason:
This is the most representative image of this bridge. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Pentecostal church in Prudnik, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, former Jewish pre-burial house. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-23 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
30 Warszawska Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 1870. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-23 19:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Methodist church in Wrocław, interior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-23 22:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Pharomachrus mocinno (Resplendent quetzal) male with non breeding tail, ventral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-23 22:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Colibri cyanotus (Lesser violetear) displaying its "ears" to another bird
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-23 22:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Aulacorhynchus prasinus (Emerald toucanet)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-24 07:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Return from hunting by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-24 07:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Aiolopus strepens female lateral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-24 08:32 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrious Church (Gradešnica) facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-24 08:40 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Gradešnica)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church, which was built on the site of a complex of Roman villas from the middle of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd centuries. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-24 08:46 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Anthony the Great Church (Gradešnica)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church, which was built on the site of a large complex of Roman villas from the middle of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd centuries. It is particularly famous for its stone-carved decoration with Greek inscription next to the entrance and its in-hill construction. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-12-24 09:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Boland's Mill
Used in:
w:Boland's Mills
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-24 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Leuconotopicus villosus (Hairy woodpecker), juvenile
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-24 10:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Poikilocarbo gaimardi (Red-legged cormorant) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-24 10:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Poikilocarbo gaimardi (Red-legged cormorant) colony
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-24 10:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Chauna torquata (Southern screamer) on nest
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-24 11:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Trincomalee War Cemetery, view from Nilaveli Rd
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Julian Lupyan (talk) on 2025-12-24 15:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Lombard coats of arms in stained glass
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Julian Lupyan (talk) on 2025-12-24 16:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Grotta del Ninfeo (Syracuse)
Used in:
Grotta del Ninfeo, Parco archeologico della Neapolis
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-24 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops apiaster (European bee-eater) attacking another European bee-eater
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-24 17:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Arctocephalus pusillus (Cape fur seal) juvenile, sleeping
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-12-24 18:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Flower buds of a Eriobotrya japonicain the greenhouse of Hortus Haren (Groningen).

Best in scope, but not used...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-24 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Signalling mast in Hel
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Mast from 1957 near lighthouse. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-24 18:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Calf shed, slaughterhouse in Szczecin, view from the southwest
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-24 19:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Great Mill in Gdańsk, interior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Former Medieval mill, now museum of amber. Interior is very dark due to concept of exhibits. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-24 22:05 (UTC)
Scope:
St Anthony`s Church - Bandarawela, view from Bandarawela Rd (Sri Lanka)

Best in scope, but not used...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-12-25 00:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Rathaus Lorsch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-25 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Bird-shaped vase. Lambayeque (culture) - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-25 07:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Jeune fille au panier by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-25 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Annachlamys striatula, orange form, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DimiTalen on 2025-12-25 08:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Keep of Crupet Castle (exterior)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DimiTalen on 2025-12-25 08:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Thierry Bodson
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-25 09:49 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Karbunica)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-25 09:50 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nedela Church (Orlanci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-25 09:50 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Anthony the Great Church (Bigor Dolenci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-25 13:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthracoceros albirostris, female and male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-25 15:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of the Church of St. Bernardino of Siena in Kraków

@Gower: ✓ Done --Igor123121 (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-25 15:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Buildings on Stradomska Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-25 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Droga do Zamku in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-12-25 15:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Bozen Central Hospital, isometric location map
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-25 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
86 Wiejska Street in Hel, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 18th century. Building is difficult to photo due to restaurant facilities around it. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-25 20:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel in Kozłowa Góra, Piekary Śląskie, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-25 20:49 (UTC)
Scope:
88 Wiejska Street in Hel, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 1817. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-25 23:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Capra ibex (Alpine ibexes) old males, fighting
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-25 23:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Porphyriops melanops crassirostris (Spot-flanked gallinule)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-25 23:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Porphyriops melanops crassirostris (Spot-flanked gallinule) swimming
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-25 23:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Pophyriops melanops crassirostris (Spot-flanked gallinule) chick
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-25 23:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Mustela erminea (Stoat) in winter fur, standing, frontal view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-26 06:55 (UTC)
Scope:

Vase in the shape of Ulluchu - Musée des Amériques - Auch

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-26 06:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of the painter Théobald Chartran by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-26 08:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Elm Park Stadium
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-26 08:32 (UTC)
Scope:
House known as ‘Spanish’ - Cambrai - Nord - France
Used in:
wikidata
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-26 09:37 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Debar)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. It is particularly famous for its interesting architecture as the closed narthex in front of the main building gives the appearance that the church consists of two merged uneven parts. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-26 09:39 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Petka Church (Crešnevo)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church. It is particularly famous for its interesting architecture as the closed narthex in front of the main building gives the appearance that the church consists of two merged uneven parts. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-26 09:41 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Čelopek)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-12-26 09:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Astrocaryum sciophilum, fruits, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-12-26 10:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Manihot grahamii, wood, Cross-section
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-26 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Gal Potha, view in Polonnaruwa (Sri Lanka)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-26 12:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Eugenes fulgens (Rivoli's hummingbird) female, lateral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-26 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Scott Speed
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-26 14:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (Desert-adapted elephant) dust bathing, lateral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-26 15:04 (UTC)
Scope:
24 Juliusza Słowackiego Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Municipal cultural heritage monument in Poland, building from 1904 with Wikipedia article, one of the most impressive façades in Katowice. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-26 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Dugout of Hel Lighthouse, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Only photo showing side view of that object. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-26 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Former fishing port complex of Hel
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, my picture shows all three listed buildings of the former port and inner basin, also within the area of listed complex. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Retoryka Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Tadeusza Kościuszki Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Czapskich Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhea pennata pennata (Lesser rhea)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Euscarthmus meloryphus meloryphus (Fulvous-crowned scrub-tyrant)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Synallaxis spixi (Spix's spinetail)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-26 16:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Hatadage, Polonnaruwa, South view (Sri Lanka)
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-26 18:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (Desert-adapted elephants) juveniles, cuddling
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2025-12-26 18:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Monumento ai caduti (Ancona), top view from west.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-26 18:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Giraffa giraffa angolensis (Angolan giraffe) silhouette, lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SebastianBlumeArt (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC) on 2025-12-26 19:10 (UTC)[reply]
Scope:

Scope

Category:Aerial photographs of Governors Island
Used in:
Reason:
This aerial photograph documents the complete structure and star-shaped layout of Fort Jay on Governors Island. It shows the fortification's geographic context within New York Harbor and is used to illustrate the corresponding article on the Arabic Wikipedia. -- SebastianBlumeArt (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-12-27 05:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Ecological Monument Laarmantuin (Arboretum). Typical rootstock of a Aesculus hippocastanum..
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-27 06:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Annachlamys striatula, brown form, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-27 07:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase decorated with a representation of chili peppers (aji) Culture Chimù - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-27 07:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Antoine Mégret d'Etigny, after François Lucas - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-27 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Alpina B7 (E12) - left rear view
Used in:
de:Alpina B7 Turbo
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-27 08:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Ranger MS-RT - left front view
Used in:
de:Ford Ranger, en:Ford Ranger (T6)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-12-27 08:27 (UTC)
Scope:
NIO EL6 - left front view
Used in:
de:Nio (Automobilhersteller)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-27 08:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Schoenicola platyurus (Broad-tailed Grassbird) - calling.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-27 09:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Zapornia akool (Brown Crake) - walking.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-27 09:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Blue-spot Hermit (Areopaguristes hummi)
@Gower: 📞Calling... the shell expert!
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-12-27 09:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Crataegus monogyna (common hawthorn), wood, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2025-12-27 09:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Triticum × zhukovskyi (Zhukovsky's wheat), seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-27 10:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Mikołaj Zyblikiewicz Monument in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-27 10:56 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Karmelicka Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-27 10:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of Church of St. Francis in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-27 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Carcharhinus melanopterus (Blacktip reef shark)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-27 11:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Carcharhinus melanopterus] (Blacktip reef shark) head-on view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-27 11:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Contopus bogotensis (Northern tropical pewee)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-27 13:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Building of the Jagiellonian Library, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, The seat of one of the most important libraries in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-27 13:10 (UTC)
Scope:
33 Wojewódzka Street in Katowice, old part, exterior
Reason:
Old part is cultural heritage monument in Poland, it was a seat of Silesian Parliament. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-27 13:16 (UTC)
Scope:
80 Stanisława Witczaka Street in Bytom, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument with own Wikipedia article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-27 13:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Pagurus edwardsii
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]
   
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"