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
60,898 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 54,959 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,379 (5.5%) 
Declined
  
 2,560 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-06 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Sephanoides sephaniodes (Green-backed firecrown) feeding in flight on Kniphofia
  •  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose @Charlesjsharp: Have opposed to give you time to respond. This is a good image and certainly VI in terms of image quality. What is troubling to me is the inclusion of a second flower species "Kniphofia" that unecessarily narrows the scope with descriptive detail. The Green-backed firecrown feeds on a number of flowers, in addition to Kniphofia. Suggest you widen the scope to "Sephanoides sephaniodes (Green-backed firecrown) feeding in flight" as a species + sub-scope. This should work here. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I would never have done this but Archaeodontosaurus has started adding plants to VI nominations. I argued the point but he is sure it is right. My view is that is you have a VI for every animal on every plant/leaf/flower then the number of VIs will explode. I remember a bug sitting of a leaf and a more recent bird perching in a tree - neither feeding. I could add hundreds of VIs on this basis! I don't really care either way, so let's wait for his response. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What we hope is that you bring many images of this type. It's perfect, you don't need to touch anything; instead, they want to limit it. Where's the logic? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Archaeodontosaurus puts more work and effort into Valued Image than anyone at this forum and I know he wants VI images to be of good quality. On that, I fully agree and want this image to have a VI rating as well. The image is not the issue here; it’s just the wording in the scope - the second part of all VI nominations.
The scope as currently written, with the double species is uniquely descriptive of your image. IMO, it is too narrow to represent “a generic field or category” and extremely unlikely that someone could make a similar image to challenge it for VI under that scope.
I want to support your VI nomination. The question is will you consider changing wording of the scope of this VI nomination to the slightly wider one I offered, or one similar, without the double species? --GRDN711 (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave as is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Charlesjsharp I think I have been clear on my reason to oppose and have offered what I believe is a viable way to resolve that is in keeping with the VI guidelines on scopes.
I have not heard you directly address the scope wording issue and would like to hear your rationale for keeping it as is. To me, it's just a minor wording change to prevent your VI nomination from having a scope that is IMO too narrow.
The fact that Archaeodontosaurus and others may have set a precedent; does not mean they were right in doing so. Even you found it was odd previously. Comment? --GRDN711 (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, if an animal species has a documented preference for a food species, then mentioning both in the scope is valid (and creating a CAT for "<animal x> feeding on <food y>". The Wikipedia page mention 3 genera of flowers preferred by the green-backed firecrown; Kniphofia is not one of them. Unless there is some other authoritative ref, I'd support GRDN711's scope suggestion. --Tagooty (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Ввласенко (talk) on 2025-11-06 16:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Men wearing helmets in Ukraine. Euromaidan 2014

A truly significant photograph from that tragic and heroic time. The protester is wearing an SSh-40 helmet (a 1940 steel helmet, manufactured for the Soviet army in tens of millions). Other protesters also used plastic construction helmets, miners' helmets, and motorcycle helmets. Police and firefighters wore their service helmets. Therefore, i suggest specifying the helmet type in scope:
A protester wearing an SSh-40 helmet during the 2014 Euromaidan protests in Kyiv.

  • The photo is not well illustrative for the current scope. Both sides of the conflict made extensive use of helmets. Therefore, i propose "A Protester" rather than a "men." Second, the protesters used various types of helmets, including sports bicycle and motorcycle helmets, plastic helmets for construction workers and miners, and even kitchen pots. It's visually impossible to distinguish between Soviet military helmets like the SSh-40, SSh-60, and SSh-68. Therefore, i propose a category like "a protester wearing a soviet military helmet..." -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not a protester, but the warrior. There was no other side of the conflict, there were troops. They looked different (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Euromaidan_2014_in_Kyiv._Inverse_world.jpg) -- Ввласенко (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:George Chernilevsky: After reviewing my answer, I thought its excessive brevity could have been perceived as rude. I assure you that's out of the question. I'll try to answer in more detail. The 2014 Maidan was the beginning of Russia's direct armed impact in Ukraine, aimed at its annihilation. This wasn't an internal conflict between the two sides; it began by hands of a fifth column, and has continued uninterrupted for almost 12 years. The man in the photo was one of those who fought, risking their lives. Such people would perceive the term "Protestant" as an insult, so "Category:Protestants" should not be used. There's the "Category:Men wearing helmets," which includes any person wearing any helmet. It has a subcategory called "Men wearing helmets by country," then a subcategory "Men wearing helmets in Ukraine," then "Men wearing helmets in Ukraine. Euromaidan 2014" (including all participants in those events, wearing any helmet). In my opinion, this subsequence is logical. It is possible to further subdivide them by types of helmets, but for now I don’t see the need for this.--Ввласенко (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-07 16:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Views of Shibuya Crossing from Shibuya Stream at night

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-07 16:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Views of Tokyo Tower from Shibuya Stream at night

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MasterRus21thCentury (talk) on 2025-11-07 19:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Lyudmila Gurchenko
Used in:
w:ru:Гурченко, Людмила Марковна
Reason:
On November 12th would have been the 90th birthday of People's Artist of the USSR Lyudmila Gurchenko, a legend of theater and cinema who captivated the nation with her leading role in Carnival Night, and whose style in subsequent films soon inspired many women to emulate her. Until last year, Wikimedia Commons had no portrait photographs of her, and the entry for the article in various languages only featured a profile photo, which is actually a cropped image from the ceremony where she was awarded the Order "For Merit to the Fatherland" 2nd Class, exactly three months before her death. This photograph was taken by the renowned photographer Igor Gnevashev, and I nominate it in their memory. -- MasterRus21thCentury (talk)

 Best in Scope--Gower (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-08 16:01 (UTC)
Scope:
The Carrying of the Cross - Biagio d'Antonio - Louvre INV 296

 Comment The image is too dark. It's easy to fix.. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-09 12:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Petar Berislavić Primary School, Trogir
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-09 14:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Circus cinereus (Cinereous harrier) male in flight
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-09 14:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Vultur gryphus (Andean condor) immature in flight
  •  Comment Excessive category with 122 images!

It would be good to create subcategories. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-09 14:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Vultur gryphus (Andean condor) male

 Comment There is a VI of a condor in flight. Perhaps add " ... perched" to the scope of this nom? I find reviewing this nom to be difficult as condor images are scattered in a number of sub-cats. --Tagooty (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Ever since I've been active at VI an animal image has been assumed to be an adult portrait without the need for further description. For a bird, that assumes it is perched. How to deal wit the condor in flight VI, I'm not sure. The bird is a sub-adult male and that should have been specified in the scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-09 17:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar of the Blessed Virgin. - Église Saint-Martin de Baisieux
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-11-09 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Škoda Enyaq RS - left front view
Used in:
de:Škoda Enyaq
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
heylenny (talk/edits) on 2025-11-10 03:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Cais Mauá, Porto Alegre, Brazil
@Archaeodontosaurus: It is specific. Do not confuse this with the "Port of Porto Alegre", which represents the whole thing, including the Mauá (the one with those cranes), the "Cais Embarcadeiro" (a gastronomic space near Usina do Gasômetro), and the "Cais do Porto" (the industrial area). heylenny (talk/edits) 11:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
heylenny (talk/edits) on 2025-11-10 03:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Centro Administrativo Fernando Ferrari, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Reason:
Although we have other good images of the building, this is the best one we have where the building itself is the focus. -- heylenny (talk/edits)
@Archaeodontosaurus and Charlesjsharp: ✓ Done. heylenny (talk/edits) 10:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: No, it's not. Did you open the image? heylenny (talk/edits) 11:49, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-10 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Peigne liturgique de Saint-Orens - Treasure of Auch Cathedral
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-10 05:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Aquamarine and Albite - Minas Gerais - Brasil
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-10 05:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Flora, Pomona, and Ceres - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-10 06:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Solecurtus philippinarum, right valve

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per Tagooty Gower (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-10 10:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Tazekka Peak, Taza Province - south east face
Used in:
wikidata:Q19286547
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-10 12:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Vultur gryphus (Andean condors) males feeding on carcass of sheep
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-10 12:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Cygnus melancoryphus (Black-necked swan) swimming
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-10 12:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Cygnus melanocoryphus (Black-necked swan) head
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
heylenny (talk/edits) on 2025-11-10 14:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Bike Itaú

 Support meets all the criteria --Gower (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-10 16:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Escamin Farm portal view from rue d'Escamin (Baisieux)

 Support Useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-11-10 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Fagus sylvatica 'Pendula', view from bus stop Ogimont (Baisieux)
Used in:
Global usage

 Comment scope looks too narrow to me. --Gower (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-10 18:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Denykhivka - Village council and outpatient clinic (view from the northeast)

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-10 18:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Denykhivka - Kindergarten (view from the southwest)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Roman Kubanskiy (talk) on 2025-11-10 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Kazakhstan
Used in:
en:Askar Mamin
Reason:
One of official portraits of former Kazakh premier Askar Mamin. It was published in its full quality by Intelfan a few years ago, but was deleted because there was no permission. The website of the Kazakh government has switched to a free license and has already published this photo. -- Roman Kubanskiy (talk)

 Oppose scope is too broad and I don't think that one man with flag is the best representation of any country. --Gower (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
WMrapids (talk) on 2025-11-11 00:19 (UTC)
Scope:
La Grande Vitesse, view from east

Previous reviews
 Comment: Previous copyright issues have been addressed and file is no longer nominated for deletion.--WMrapids (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-11-11 05:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Mahonia aquifolium (fruit) Familie: Berberidaceae.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-11 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Owl-shaped stirrup-handled vase - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-11 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Calcite on siderite; Rivet quarry, Réalmont, Tarn, France
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-11 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Buste d'Edouard Lartet par Louis Rochet - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-11 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Solecurtus philippinarum, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-11 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Parshvanatha Kakatiya time period, Salar Jung Museum, Hyderabad
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-11 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Window of Badal Mahal, Kumbhalgarh, Rajasthan, India
@Archaeodontosaurus: please see the updated scope. --Brihaspati (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Look at the correct syntax --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Archaeodontosaurus: ✓ Done—Brihaspati (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2025-11-11 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Stegerwaldstraße (Leipzig)
Used in:
wikidata: Stegerwaldstraße

 Support Useful and used, best within the scope. --Gower (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-11 10:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Daptrius chimango chimango (Chimango caracara) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-11 10:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Daptrius chimango temucoensis (Chimango caracara) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-11 10:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Daptrius chimango temucoensis (Chimango caracara) male in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Velvet (talk) on 2024-11-11 16:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Town hall of Gouville-sur-Mer (exterior)

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-11 16:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Abingdon-on-Thames (England)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-11 16:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Saint-Nicolas (Belgium)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-11 16:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Schongau (Germany)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-11 16:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Lucca (Italy)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-11 18:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Denykhivka - School (view from the southwest)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-11 18:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Denykhivka - Stadium (view from the southeast)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-12 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Auch Cathedral - South door of the Great choir towards the ambulatory.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-12 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Antoine Mégret d'Etigny by Jean-Pierre Vigan - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-12 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
The choir of the Saint-Orens Church in Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-12 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Marcia japonica (Japan Venus), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-12 07:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Eisenstadt (Austria)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-12 07:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Princeton (USA)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2025-11-12 07:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Twinning of Colmar with Győr (Hungary)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Dzveniache - First aid station (view from the east)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Dzveniache - House of Culture (view from the southwest)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Sound II (Gormley)
Used in:

Winchester Cathedral

Antony Gormley
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Swiss Embassy, Dublin
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Poolbeg Lighthouse

 Comment There are a number of good images of the lighthouse, some close-up some distant. Perhaps a more restricted scope including the point of view and the distance? --Tagooty (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cvmontuy (talk) on 2025-11-12 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Brachystola mexicana
Used in:
es:Brachystola mexicana
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-12 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Spilopelia chinensis (Spotted Dove) - on erythrina variegata
Reason:
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-12 17:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Pycnonotus cafer (Red-vented Bulbul) - on erythrina variegata
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-12 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Daptrius chimango temucoensis (Chimango caracara) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-12 22:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Lateral view of Ypsolopha sequella
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-13 05:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Marcia japonica (Japan Venus), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-13 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Vierge en Assomption - Trésor de la cathédrale d’Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-13 06:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Figure covered with a turtle shell feeding a feline on his shoulder - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-13 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Argya malcolmi (Large grey babbler) - on lantana camara
I don't think the scope is too narrow. It is a common practice on VI to include the specific name of a tree or plant that a bird or an insect is sitting on (recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). This means that there can be several different VI scopes for each different plant or tree a bird or insects is sitting on. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-13 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Argya malcolmi (Large grey babbler) - eating

 Support useful, good quality, best (and probably only one) in scope --Gower (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-13 06:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Chhatra (top-most part) of Shanti Stupa (Dhauli) Odisha, India
Used in:
Global usage

 Support best in scope --Gower (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Yakshi in sandstone in Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Used in:
Global
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Malayopython reticulatus (English:Reticulated python) in Kenya
@Archaeodontosaurus: Check the updated scope please. --Brihaspati (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Dzveniache - School (view from the north)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:58 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Michael's Church in Dzveniache (view from the north)

 Comment The linked CAT in the scope is too broad. The Church deserves its own Category. --Tagooty (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagooty: ✓ Done --Nikride (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-13 09:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Dorsal view of Apodemus agrarius

 Oppose Very low-res ~0.5 MP. There are better higher res images in the CAT. --Tagooty (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Tagooty: , low-res indeed, it's from 2007 (If I understand correctly we don't have megapixels limits for VI) but I don't see any "better higher res images" of that kind (dorsal view) in the CAT. Which one is better? --Gower (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment notice: global usage exceedes 150 pages --Gower (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides quality, the colour is off. According to Wikipedia, the striped field mouse is grayish brown with a rusty tint. Most other images in Commons and in an Internet search are per the Wikipedia description, while the nom image is orange-brown. Some images that are better representations IMO: one two three four.
    The nom image may have been the best image in 2007, and hence became widely-used. I guess that editors of pages will in due course replace it with better images. --Tagooty (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
August (talk) on 2025-11-13 10:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Sprelacart (wood imitation)
Used in:
Wikipedia: Sprelacart

 Support best in scope & in use --Gower (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-13 10:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Souss-Massa National Park, entrance at Sidi R'bat
Used in:
en:Souss-Massa National Park
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-13 10:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Ouirgane commune, Al Haouz province, Morocco - view from the south east
Used in:
en:Ouirgane
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-13 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Lateral view of Tenthredo maculata imago

 Support Useful and used. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-13 11:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Lateral view of Pachyprotasis rapae imago

 Support Useful and used. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-13 11:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Monophadnus spinolae

 Support Useful and used. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-13 11:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Lateral view of Euura genus imago

 Support Useful and used. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2025-11-13 21:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Transit Connect (3rd generation) - left front view
Used in:
de:Ford Transit Connect, uk:Ford Transit
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
heylenny (talk/edits) on 2025-11-13 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Orla do Guaíba, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Reason:
The best "sunset of Orla do Guaíba" image in scope, IMHO. -- heylenny (talk/edits)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Lemyra rhodophila (male) - dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Miltochrista undulosa - dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Squamosa ocellata - dorsal

 Comment it's lateral view to me --Gower (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Ostensoir de Saint-Orens - Treasure of Auch Cathedral
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Dysmachus trigonus male on Dianthus caryophyllus.
I don't think the scope is too narrow. It is a common practice on VI to include the specific name of a tree or plant that a bird or an insect is sitting on (recent examples: 1, 2, 3, 4). This means that there can be several different VI scopes for each different plant or tree a bird or insects is sitting on. -- Giles Laurent (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Small sarcophagus - 4th-5th century AD Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Codakia orbicularis (American Tiger Lucina), right valve

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]

hamster

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2011-12-10 22:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European Hamster)

 Support Excellent. All criteria met.--Jetstreamer (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)  Support Seems to be the best one Kersti (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-01-04 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cricetus cricetus (European hamster)
Reason:
replacing image of museum specimen -- Charlesjsharp (talk)

talk]]) 14:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Acridotheres ginginianus nests

[edit]
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres ginginianus nests

 Comment Neither of the two images is VI, so Most Valued Review is not the right place for these. If you intended to nominate a Valued Image, choose the best one and put it at the bottom of the "New valued image nominations" section --Tagooty (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2025-04-27 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Acridotheres ginginianus nests

 Comment Neither of the two images is VI, so Most Valued Review is not the right place for these. If you intended to nominate a Valued Image, choose the best one and put it at the bottom of the "New valued image nominations" section --Tagooty (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-24 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Old tavern Au chat barré avenue du Peuple Belge, Lille, view from Parc Louise de Bettignies
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Au chat barré, ancien estaminet avenue du Peuple Belge (Lille)
Reason:
Perspective is ok on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]

 Support Light and colors are superior. --Milseburg (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-25 15:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Renaissance house, rue de Gand 31, Lille, view from rue des Tours
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Immeuble, 31 rue de Gand (Lille)

 Best in Scope, of course different angle of view but still better --Gower (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-04-27 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, 61-63, rue de la Monnaie (Vieux-Lille), view from 28 Rue de la Monnaie
Used in:
Global usage
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-05-05 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel du Juge Garde des Monnaies, Lille
Reason:
The left facade is visible from this view. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

bats

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2015-08-05 13:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-05-06 15:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhynchonycteris naso (Long-nosed proboscis bats)
Reason:
I use a better camera these days! -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Karl Marx

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2015-12-20 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in:
see Global file usage
  •  Support I have checked this submision against the six VI criteria. AS this is a studio image, the geocoding requirement is not neccessary. In my opinion this submission meets the other five critieria. I would however recommend changing the scope from "Portraits of Karl Marx" (plural) to "Portrait of Karl Marx". (Singular) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 14:28, December 20, 2015‎ (UTC)
✓ Done ~ Moheen (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, There are several very good portrait paintings of KM. It is usual here to add "photographic portrait of KM".--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giovanni Cardinali on 2025-07-08 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx

 Best in Scope significantly better than predecessor, look at the eyes! --Gower (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Peace Palace

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-12-15 16:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in:
fr:Palais de la Paix, fy:Fredespaleis, nl:Vredespaleis, ru:Дворец Мира

Scope changed from Peace Palace (front view), The Hague to Peace Palace (front view), The Hague. Note the underlying category has been changed, not the visible text. --Martinvl (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolf im Wald on 2025-08-03 21:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Peace Palace (front view), The Hague
Used in:
en:Andrew Carnegie, es:Arquitectura de los Países Bajos
Reason:
Nearly similar view but higher detail level. -- Wolf im Wald
  •  Support Compared to its predecessor this image is of far superior quality: detailing the imposing and enormously intricate brick- and stonework, flawlessly rendered and stitched, perfect verticals, exactly centered. Such an undertaking is not at all easy, as I know, and thus gives great credit to the photographer's efforts & skills. Seen at full size it is a one-of-a-kind image that not only exhibits a complete view of this edifice but also highlights and spotlights all the fine details of craftmanship combined in its construction. A joy to explore this image, simply phenomenal! -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Best in Scope per Franz van Duns--Gower (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Doris Day

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2015-03-27 10:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Doris Day

 Info Studio shot, so no geocoding. Yann (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: -1
2. DorisDay-midnightlace.jpg: +5 <--
=>
File:Doris Day, Aquarium, gottlieb.01841.jpg: Declined 
File:Day-midnightlace.jpg: Promoted <--

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JayCubby (talk) on 2025-08-07 01:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Doris Day
Used in:
extensive
Reason:
Good resolution reproduction of a useful studio portrait. -- JayCubby (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Statue of Vercingétorix in Alise Sainte-Reine, France.

[edit]

Rhagastis gloriosa - dorsal

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Rhagastis gloriosa - dorsal

 Oppose in that scope (no sex specified or distinction to alive or mounted specimen) there's better image imho, I created MVR --Gower (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-04-11 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhagastis gloriosa specimen - male dorsal

* Oppose Per COM:VIS links in the scope should be made to a Commons gallery only if a Commons category is not available. Please link your scope to the image category to direct reviewers to a full comparison of all images of this scope in Commons (appear to be 3) rather than a select gallery of 1 image that you created. Have faith in the guidelines and the process. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)  Support with scope link to Category:Rhagastis gloriosa species. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The problem is that photos should be compared to every other photo in scope when we evaluate them to determine which is best in scope. Bloat can be addressed when subcategories can be created, but for the purpose of judging which is best in scope, if a bloated category needs to be linked, I submit that it should be linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All galleries are linked: The link is in the gallery. We are debating for 1 click.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I share your concern, Archaeodontosaurus, of there being too many images in some popular categories. In other venues, my personal proposal was that Commons shoudl establish a process to remove images of dubious value. Unfortunately, when I have raised this approach, it did not find support…☹.
Until Commons gains better consensus on how best to deal with too many images in popular categories, the resolution remains to sub-categorize bloated categories into meaningful sub-categories that can be linked to VI scopes.
It should be noted that a bloated category is not the case here. There are only 7 images in total for the Category:Rhagastis gloriosa species, of which you are nominating 3 for VI as different sub-scopes – male dorsal, ventral and both sides. For me personally, one VI for the species would be enough, but I recognize that these sub-scopes are meaningful and will review and support them if they conform to COM:VIS guidelines.
The main reason to support COM:VIS guidelines linking scopes to categories is to support the claim that your image is the most valuable in all of Commons at the time of VI nomination, and not limited to a lesser claim of most valuable in a custom gallery.
IMHO, the best path forward here is to link your scope to the appropriate species category and continue to do so going forward. By my observation, you are the only one, active in this forum, who links to galleries that you created.
It should be noted that you do nice work in creating your galleries. I find them well done, professional and educational. If you want to share a gallery link, it could be put in the supporting “Reason” line of the VI nomination to educate and support your nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formalism of the project also involves the Muséum de Toulouse and Wikipedia France. We cannot modify without several meetings, but it is enough that the scope point on the category, this point seems to me asceptable, but only for the scope of VI; tomorrow the next butterfly scope will be formatted like this. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very good picture, valuable and used. I don't understand the problem, why this excellent photo should be worthless. Furthermore, in my opinion several pictures of one and the same object can be valuable. In this context, it is remarkable that the same critic repeatedly claims that he can determine what is right and what is wrong. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment My observation, Spurzem, is that you have a very good understanding. No one has said that this image is not VI in Commons. What is in discussion is adherence to the process by which a VI rating is assigned which must follow the guidelines of Commons and be the same as used to assign VI ratings to the images that you nominate.
All images are valuable to the photographer who took them, but only those that judged by consensus to meet the 6 criteria of COM:VICR are Commons Valued Images. This includes the difficult #2 – definition of the scope for VI nomination, with guidelines further described in COM:VIS.
If you image is judged VI, then it becomes the most valuable in Commons, until a better one with that scope comes along and competes successfully against it in MVR. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: You feel obviously as the supreme guardian of the rules, whether rightly or wrongly is an open question. However, please do not overdo it. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

Pending valued image set candidates

[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"