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]
candidate list Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
63,148 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,952 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,570 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,626 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-21 14:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche 918 RSR - left front view

 Best in Scope--Pierre André (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Vehicle model with sub-scope view are fine but inclusion of "in the Porsche-Museum (2009)" is excess description that makes the scope too narrow. Open to listening to your thoughts on this. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment @Alexander-93: There is a problem with this scope as it does meet the COM:VIS guidelines in being a suitably generic. IMO, a more generic scope that references just the vehicle model and view - “Porsche 918 RSR - left front view”, would be “just right”.
"Image taken in the Porsche-Museum (2009)" could be added as a reason to support VI nomination, that this image may be better than similar others as it is reasonable to think that the Porche Museum would select a good example of the model for display.--GRDN711 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Location is generally unimportant, but for cars, a museum or participation in a race are, I think, exceptions if it is a rare/special vehicle like this 'racing laboratory' concept car. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Charles – your first hunch was right. The addition of location in this VI nomination is superfluous description and should not be part of the scope.
If you go up one level to Category:Porsche 918 RSR, you will find about 20 images of this same “22” Porsche 918 RSR vehicle in different locations like Geneva and Detroit. Is this same car magically different when the Porche Museum sends it to different auto shows? If I nominate for VI, the best image of this same “22” Porsche 918 RSR automobile from each different location, will you vote for it?
As clearly stated in COM:VIS, the layering of superfluous description beyond a generic scope makes the scope too narrow, just like “some mouldy nectarines in a fruit bowl". Location is not an appropriate sub-scope in this nomination.
I have presented above what I think is a good scope for this image that could work well. It remains to be seen if the nominator will take it. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree with GRDN711 that as this unique car travels to various museums then the museum should not be in the scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanks for your comments - I changed the scope accorded to GRDN711 suggestion.--Alexander-93 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Maximilian Reininghaus (talk) on 2026-04-22 12:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of St. Joseph in Liemke - Germany

 Comment The scope needs more information: the city, interior view from... -- JackyM59 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-24 08:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Treron axillaris canescens (Philippine green-pigeon) female
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-25 05:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Astrophytum ornatum - young plant
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-04-25 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
M1888 10 inch gun - lowered position, view from right
Used in:
wikidata:Q19773189
Reason:
A disappearing gun is lowered below the surrounding breastworks for loading, and raised for firing. --Tagooty (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2026-04-25 16:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Passerelle Confluence
Probably no interest other than local. Gzen92 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-25 18:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Bomal Castle, Belgium - exterior seen from the south
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-25 19:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Penelopides samarensis (Samar hornbill) male

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-25 19:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Penelopides samarensis (Samar hornbill) male in flight
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-25 19:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Pitta sordida sordida (Western hooded pitta)

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2026-04-26 00:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Wet paint sign (English)
Reason:
Clearly illustrates subject. Scope reflects sign dependence on the language of communication. -- GRDN711 (talk)
  •  Question why is this worth a VI scope please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment While there are thousands of species of animals, insects or birds that I will never see, I have encountered a "Wet Paint" sign several times as a means of communicarion about a universal condition that requires warning. When I uploaded the image, there was already an existing category with many similar images from around the world.
"To become a valued image (VI) or a valued image set (VIS) the candidate must be the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects."
Per COM:VIV, an VI nom does not have to be of the highest encyclopedic value. It must always be well done but can illustrte a common condition. I believe this qualifies. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot think of any objective critria by which you can use to assess this as the 'most valuable illustration'. I find this image more valuable as it shows which colour is wet, but I don't think it's a sound scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The example you cite is a good one taken at a hotel in Hong Kong and displaying its warning in the two official HK languages - Cantonese and English. Mine is in English only, as stated in the scope. I like the splash of the painted color on the HK warning sign - that's a nice touch.
What makes mine more valuable is that it was taken at the height of the sign, not at human height from above. This perpsective lets the sign fill the frame and better illustrate what it is - a cautionary sign indicating there are freshly painted objects (of any color) nearby. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-26 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Septifer cumingii, juvenile, right valve

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-26 05:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Gymnocalycium monvillei subsp. horridispinum - Top view

 Best in Scope and used ---Pierre André (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-26 09:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Dicrurus striatus samarensis (Short-tailed drongo) showing chest feathers

 Support--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-26 09:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Dicrurus striatus samarensis (Short-tailed drongo) showing neck iridescence

 Best in Scope and used ---Pierre André (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-26 09:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Hemiprocne comata major (Whiskered treeswift) female

 Support--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-26 12:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Southeast tower of Logne Castle, Belgium - exterior seen from the north
Reason:
Cultural heritage monuments in Wallonia in Belgium -- JackyM59 (talk)

 Best in Scope and used ---Pierre André (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-26 14:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche 356/2 Coupe in the Porsche-Museum (2009) - right rear view
Used in:
en:Porsche 356/2
Also, please explain the 2009 year reference. I know that the Porche Museum was opened to the public in 2009 but this image was taken in 2022. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-26 14:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche 356/2 Gmünd Cabriolet in the Porsche-Museum (2009) - left front view
Used in:
en:Porsche 356/2

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose You hae a good image but "in the Porsche-Museum (2009}" in the scope is superfluous description making the scope too narrow. I suggest putting this phrase in the reason for nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-26 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche 356 A 1500 GS Carrera Speedster in the Porsche-Museum (2009) - left front view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
E bailey (talk) on 2026-04-26 16:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Detention Center building (exterior) at U.S. Immigration Station Angel Island
Used in:
en:Angel Island (California), en:Migration museum, en:Angel Island Immigration Station, en:List of museums in the San Francisco Bay Area
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
E bailey (talk) on 2026-04-26 16:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Chelonoidis niger hoodensis (Española giant tortoise), head in profile
Used in:
en:Hood Island giant tortoise
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-27 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Astrophytum capricorne (goat's horn cactus)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-27 17:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Anous minutus marcusi (Black noddy) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-27 17:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Onychoprion anaethetus anaethetus (Bridled tern) breeding plumage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-27 17:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Anous stolidus pileatus (Brown noddy) with nesting material
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-27 19:03 (UTC)
Scope:
The feudal castle and the Saint-Nicolas church of La Roche-en-Ardenne, Belgium - exterior seen from the west
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2026-04-27 22:39 (UTC)
Scope:
CCGS Florencia Bay – MMSI 316041901
Reason:
shere are two other images with a starboard view but this one best shows the ship under way with crew at midships and stern. -- GRDN711 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-28 12:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Megapodius laperouse senex (Micronesian megapode)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-28 12:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Nycticorax caledonicus pelewensis (Nankeen night heron) in flight

 Best in Scope ans used -- JackyM59 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-28 12:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Gandaca harina mindanaensis (Tree yellow) underside

 Best in Scope The only one --JackyM59 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-04-28 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Achille Fould photograph by Pierson.
Reason:
I think this one is the best in scope among other candidates, mainly due to his size and restoration. Achille Fould was one of the ministers of Finances of emperor Napoleon III -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-28 05:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Echeveria pulidonis - inflorescence
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-28 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Epilobium ciliatum (fringed willowherb) - flowers

 Support Smartphone so-so quality, but best in scope indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-04-29 04:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Baselgia catolica Sogn Gieri (Surcuolm) Right side altar.

 Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-29 04:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Aequipecten commutatus, right valve

 Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-29 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Diquis art - Statuette of a man - Chiriqui Culture Costa Rica - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Best in Scope and used --JackyM59 (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-29 13:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Egretta sacra (Pacific reef heron) dark morph in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-29 13:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Egretta sacra (Pacific reef heron) light morph in flight

 Best in Scope and used --Pierre André (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-29 13:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Junonia hedonia ida (Brown pansy) dorsal

 Best in Scope and used--Pierre André (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Maximilian Reininghaus (talk) on 2026-04-29 14:29 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Albert (Zuffenhausen), Stuttgart, Germany
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-29 15:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Modave Castle - Belgium, exterior seen from the southeast
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-30 05:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Cauliflory - Cercis siliquastrum flowers
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-30 05:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Aequipecten commutatus, left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-30 08:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhipidura lepida (Palau fantail) showing fantail
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-30 08:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhipidura lepida (Palau fantail) showing chest feathers
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-30 08:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Hypolimnas bolina philippensis (Great eggfly) underside

 Best in Scope Yhe only one --JackyM59 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-30 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior, reading - Lithograph by Henri Matisse
Open for review.

I have added the following to the VI Nomination ProcedureːPlease ensure you have the FastCCI gadget enabled. You should use this to identify existing VIs with similar scopes. Note that if an image shows up as FP or QI it may also be a Valued Image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed valued image candidates

[edit]


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=1198819023"