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
61,170 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,180 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,408 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,582 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Avenue Al Eucalypthus, Agdal-Riyad, Rabat, Morocco
Used in:
wikidata:Q136759826
Reason:
Shows the road, the eucalyptus trees and buildings. -- Tagooty (talk)
  • @Charlesjsharp: The École Belge de Rabat, an international school, is located on this road. This road is the southern boundary of an upscale residential area on the edge of Rabat. Roads in this area are named for plants and trees. I believe this road is of more than local interest.
    The definition of scope in COM:VIS is being broadened by VI reviewers in recent times. I think this will help to spread Wikimedia coverage of under-represented countries such as Morocco. Having well-categorised and rated images could drive articles and projects. --Tagooty (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reviewers seem to promote any building, road, road sign, etc. I don't agree, I believe it destroys the purpose of VI, but I don't oppose as then everyone gets cross! Andd the tree is not native to Morocco. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Charlesjsharp: If a category exists with multiple images and some are used in Wiki projects, I think that is reason to consider a VI scope.
    BTW, eucalyptus was introduced in Morocco in the 1860s, it constitutes 40% of forest plantations and 5% of total forest area. It is now an important tree in the country. --Tagooty (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Geraki TLG on 2025-11-26 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
White Tower of Thessaloniki
Used in:
el:Λευκός Πύργος
  • @Geraki: in scope you should put link to the Commons category, not Wikipedia article. Your nominated picture is QI and it's very good, but IMHO those have better lighting and closer to the typical daylight: 1 and 2 --Gower (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-26 17:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Assumption church in Chęciny – interior, view towards the main altar
Reason:
Gothic church, it was built in 14th century, has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. -- Gower (talk)

Scope changed from Interior of Assumption church in Chęciny, view towards the main altar to Assumption church in Chęciny, view towards the main altar --Gower (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-27 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathartes aura jota (Chilean turkey vulture) in flight
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-27 09:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Paroaria coronata (Red-crested cardinal)

probably  Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-27 11:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Commercial signs of the jewellery shop A la Cloche d'Or (Lille), view from rue des Manneliers
Sorry @Gower: The file you've provided needs discussion; the image is blurry, the perspective needs correcting, and there's no geolocation. Best regards --Pierre André (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre André Leclercq: you're right about quality, anyway, your photo doesn't show whole shop, which is unacceptable for me in that scope. --Gower (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower: The scope had been corrected, indicating that it refers to the commercial signs of the business and not of the building.--Pierre André (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre André Leclercq: I recommend using Template:VIC-scope-change in the future, then you can see changes in scope, especially for people who have not been following the discussion from the beginning; in my opinion, the new scope is too narrow, but if so I would prefer 1 or 2 so I keep my opposing vote. --Gower (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower: I agree, I'll keep that in mind next time, thanks for the advice.--Pierre André (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower: I stand by my previous comments. The file you provided require analysis: the image is blurry, the perspective needs correcting, and the geolocation is missing. Furthermore, the Omega Watch sign is not visible. In my opinion, this is absurd for the Bossut Jewelry store, established in 1900, which is the jewel of the Grand'Place (probably the oldest jewelry store in Lille). Please let's keep the discussion open. Sincerely --Pierre André (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pierre André Leclercq: I agree that Omega sign is important, I didn't know it is linked to that shop; let's leave the photos I proposed, I would prefer the entire facade with the ground floor of the store, which is the subject of the scope, sorry --Gower (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower: There is no problem you're welcome.--Pierre André (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-27 14:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Tenement house, 102 Katowicka Street in Chorzów, facade
Reason:
Building has 'cultural heritage monument in Poland' status. Only photo parallel to the facade. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-27 14:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Building of Opera Śląska (Silesian Opera) in Bytom, western facade
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-27 14:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Cameraria ohridella, mating, lateral view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-28 06:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Columns of the former Cordeliers cloister in Auch. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-28 06:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of Simone Singer by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-28 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Portail du croisillon sud du transept - Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2025-11-28 08:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of the Golconda Fort, Dome interior, Hyderabad
Used in:
Golconda
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-11-28 09:05 (UTC)
Scope:
La Fontaine de la Place d'Armes de Douai
Used in:
wikidata

Scope changed from Place d'Armes de Douai to La Fontaine de la Place d'Armes de Douai --JackyM59 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-11-28 08:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise by Camille Pissarro - Musée d’Orsay - Paris
Used in:
wikidata
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-28 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Main entrance of the Vieille Bourse with relief of coats of arms of Lille, view from Place du Gl De Gaulle
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-28 10:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Lycalopex griseus (South American grey fox) feeding on lizard

 Comment That is indeed his currently recognized name, but there is no category; it needs to be created.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-28 10:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Leistes loyca loyca (Long-tailed meadowlark) male, breeeding plumage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-28 10:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Leistes loyca loyca (Long-tailed meadowlark) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-28 11:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Gate to the Vieille Bourse, with an allegorical coat of arms, of Lille, view from rue des 7 Agaches
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-29
Scope:
Alcis arisema,dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-29 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Yellow Celestine. Gypsum quarry, Arignac, France
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-29 06:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Globular vase representing a feline-bird hybrid being - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-29 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Villa of Oskar Działoszyński in Katowice, facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-29 07:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Barbara chapel in Bytom, view from the west
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-29 07:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Pałac Kawalera in Świerklaniec – eastern facade

Scope changed from Little palace named Pałac Kawalera in Świerklaniec, eastern facade to Pałac Kawalera in Świerklaniec – eastern facade --Gower (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
  •  Support with revised scope. "Little palace" is good information to include in the image description. IMO in general, simpler scopes without extra descriptive terms best meet the scope requirement for "a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example."
Open for review.
--GRDN711 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-29 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Fryderyk Chopin music school building in Bytom, rear elevation
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-29 12:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Leistes superciliaris (White-browed meadowlark) breeding male in breeding plumage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-29 12:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Xolmis irupero (White monjita)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-29 12:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Tachycineta leucopyga (Chilean swallow) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-11-30 05:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Intruder (ship, 1971) Port side.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-30 06:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Owl-shaped stirrup-handled vase - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-30 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of a young girl by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-30 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase depicting a 'Muy-Muy' (a species of sand flea) Culture Chimù - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-30 07:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Periglypta exclathrata, left valve

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-11-30 08:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Mathieu lighthouse view from the south-east
Used in:
wikidata

 Info The photograph was taken from the south-west. . -- JackyM59 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-30 11:43 (UTC)
Scope:
the Vieille Bourse Campanile, view from Place du Gl De Gaulle (Lille)
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
Historical geotagged image -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-30 12:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Chigi (Rome), southern facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-30 13:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Mars (western hemisphere)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-30 16:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Building of Hotel Reichshof, view from the north
Reason:
Building has 'cultural heritage monument' in Poland status. Photo shows entire both facades as only one. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-30 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Former fire station in Bytom-Łagiewniki, view from the southeast
Reason:
Building has 'cultural heritage monument' in Poland status. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-30 17:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Vanellus chilensis chilensis (Southern lapwing) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-30 17:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Vanellus chilensis chilensis (Southern lapwing) chick
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-30 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Veniliornis mixtus mixtus (Checkered woodpecker) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2025-11-30 19:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Impulszentrum für Werkstoffe, front facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2025-12-01 05:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Amanita muscaria In development. This fly agaric has only been above ground for two days.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-01 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Tawera elliptica, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-01 06:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Star-shaped club head - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-01 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Terellia winthemi female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-01 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceremonial Tumi with sound effects Culture mochica - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used ---Pierre André (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-01 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Actinodura cyanouroptera (Blue-winged minla) - calling.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-01 10:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Mimus saturninus (Chalk-browed mockingbird)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-01 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Muscisaxicola capistratus (Cinnamon-bellied ground-tyrant)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-01 10:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Geositta cunicularia cunicularia (Common miner)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-12-01 14:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Actinodura cyanouroptera (Blue-winged minla) - dorsal view.

 Support good quality, useful, vivid colors --Pierre André (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-01 14:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Pigeons eating bread
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-01 16:36 (UTC)
Scope:
12 Gliwicka Street in Bytom, facade
Reason:
The building has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Useful and used --Pierre André (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-01 16:39 (UTC)
Scope:
2 Stanisława Webera Street in Bytom, view from the southwest
Reason:
The oldest surviving house in Bytom Old Town, has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-01 16:35 (UTC)
Scope:
26 Market Square in Bytom, view from the north
Reason:
Tenement house and art gallery, has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Useful and used --Pierre André (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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"