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.

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
60,973 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
55,024 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
3,385 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
2,564 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
heylenny (talk/edits) on 2025-11-10 14:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Bike Itaú
@George Chernilevsky: ".tif" format because that's the format of the original file I cropped. heylenny (talk/edits) 16:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, the best option would be jpeg, regardless of the format of the original file, but this is just a wish. -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
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]

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-10 18:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Denykhivka - Kindergarten (view from the southwest)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Dzveniache - First aid station (view from the east)
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Dzveniache - House of Culture (view from the southwest)
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

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

Winchester Cathedral

Antony Gormley

* Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Davekern (talk) on 2025-11-12 12:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Swiss Embassy, Dublin
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Cvmontuy (talk) on 2025-11-12 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Brachystola mexicana
Used in:
es:Brachystola mexicana
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-12 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Spilopelia chinensis (Spotted Dove) - on erythrina variegata
Per COM:VIS, the general rule is one scope per species. However, it is allowed that “for some well-known species, sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of behaviour as long are they are relevant for Wikimedia projects”. Sub-scope examples given are “male versus female if identifiable”, “single versus group”, "eggs", "juvenile", "hunting", "mating", "hatching", "flying", "albino"...
By my estimate, there are about 50 valid VI scope with optional sub-scope combinations for any animal, bird, insect or similar critter that would be in keeping with the COM:VIS guidelines on scope.
However, when you add a second species, the scope becomes both confusing (which species is being nominated here?) and too narrow. The inclusion of a second species in the scope is a descriptive element unique to your image that makes the scope too narrow and not “a generic field or category within which the image is the most valuable example”.
You have a good image. It's just the wording of the scope that needs some work. My suggestion on a path forward is to look at your image and find one of the 50 scope/sub-scope combinations that would be acceptable (aka "just right") --GRDN711 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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]
  •  Comment Giles Laurent, it appears we see things quite differently on this point. IMO, you have put together a small but fine collection of images with VI ratings that have slipped through with scopes that in citing two speciesm are "too narrow". It is not common practice to do this and a few examples do not change the VI guidelines.
Per COM:VIS "...a scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example".
How valuable can a VI rating be if you can have one "for each different plant or tree a bird or insects is sitting on"? Every image has a descriptive element in it that is different from any other. Just having layers of detail doesn't make the image a valued image in Commons.
It is not the intention of this VI forum and review to hand out VI ratings like candy. It must be a good image nominated within a defined scope that is not too wide; not too narrow; just right. - -GRDN711 (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: As animals do not visit random plants this scope is considered valid and that's why I use it. I am participating here may be for just few months but you people are far more experienced I believe, so please decide if it is a valid scope or not. I have no intention of bending rules. I get to learn a lot from here that's why I participate. Thank you - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Sorry Tisha, I respectfully disagree with your statement - "As animals do not visit random plants this scope is considered valid...". Birds perch on any plant or structure that can hold their weight. They also poop on anything and anyone. They may have some preference for food sources but this bird is perching, not eating. Even then, it would be the rare case where a bird would be limited to a single plant as a food source (not good for survival of the species).
If you take out the second plant species from the scope and have no other characterstic bird behavior to offer as sub-species, then you are left with a VI claim that this image is the best and therefore most valuable, of this species.
I don't know if this is the case but if you change your scope to just the species, I will review it on that basis. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: I do have a lot of respect for you and also for those who have chosen to support. I would love them to participate in the discussion and come to a conclusion weather this scope should be used or not. Thank you - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 09:44, 18 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

 Comment Geolocation must be indicated, and the scope should be more specific. --Pierre André (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-13 08:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Malayopython reticulatus (Reticulated python)
@Archaeodontosaurus: Check the updated scope please. --Brihaspati (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully  Oppose as this is a good image. My concern is the inclusion of "in Kenya" as a sub-scope as it is not a visible characteristic or habit of this reptile. The cocuntries where this reptile is found in its natural wild environment are in South and Southeast Asia. This is a museum specimen located at the Nairobi National Museum, Kenya.
It's your call, but you could make the wider VI claim that this is the best and most valuable image at Commons of the "Malayopython reticulatus (Reticulated python)" species, or perhaps more limiting "Malayopython reticulatus (Reticulated python)" species - museum specimen. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: I have updated the category as per your suggestion. FYI @Archaeodontosaurus: , since you also voted. --Brihaspati (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Brihaspati: A cross-out is not best practice in VI as the scope as written becomes part of the record for the VI nomination. You as nominator should go in and edit the scope to exactly what you want it to be reviewed as. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: changed the scope and removed cross-out. --Brihaspati (talk) 08:55, 18 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)

 Oppose @Nikride: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (COM:VIS), is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary school building in small Ukrainian village. Second thing: no category for that scope added/created. --Gower (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

 Oppose @Nikride: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope." (COM:VIS), Is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary modern church in small Ukrainian village. Importance not not shown in any way. --Gower (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

View promotion
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]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
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
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
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
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
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]

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

View promotion
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]

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

View promotion
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-13 11:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Monophadnus spinolae Lateral view

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

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
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]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
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
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

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.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Lemyra rhodophila (male) - dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Miltochrista undulosa - dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

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

 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]

 Comment @George Chernilevsky: MVR was imho valid until @Atudu: changed the scope after my review. --Gower (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Best in Scope after clarification of the scope --Gower (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Suggest a little further clean up on the scope to follow the COM:VIS guidelines to include the common name in the scope. Suggest:
|scope=[[:Category:Rhagastis gloriosa|''Rhagastis gloriosa'' (crimson mottled hawkmoth)]] - female, live specimen, dorsal view
I suggest you implement the same COM:VIS insect scope format of ''[[scientific name]]'' (vernacular or common name), sub-scope in your other VI nominations --GRDN711 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Squamosa ocellata - lateral view

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

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-14 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Ostensoir de Saint-Orens - Treasure of Auch Cathedral
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

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]
 Comment @Giles Laurent: , I believe that common practice is wrong and pointless, look here: Commons:Valued_image_scope/en#Animals. sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of behaviour – not specific background. Fly can sit on every species in its environment so we should create 1000-2000 scopes for it? --Gower (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current practice makes sense because the plant or tree is a valuable information about the animal's environment, which is also a reflector of the behavior of the animal/insect that will prefer some environments to others. So to me this is perfectly fine with the rules -- Giles Laurent (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @George Chernilevsky: of course that animals have their feeding plants etc. but not always. I also photograph insects and it varies, sometimes certain plants have significance, and sometimes it's a coincidence. --Gower (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good image but regretfully  Oppose based on scope. The inclusion of second plant species with this insect species is overly descriptive and narrow. This insect feeds on other insects and can be found on a number of different plants, not specifically this plant species. Also, common name of "fan-bristled robberfly" should be included. Suggest you consider a better scope for further consideration. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Best in Scope --Pierre André (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (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.

View promotion
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]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Timandra correspondens - dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Agnibesa pictaria dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Anonychia grisea dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 11:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-14
Scope:
Arichanna sparsa dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Parectopa robiniella lateral view

 Oppose This one is better --Pierre André (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: your 'better' option is out the scope, here is lateral view, but in proposed file is dorsal view. --Gower (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Gower: That's your opinion. I'll let other photographers reconsider my opinion. Best regards. --Pierre André (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: that's not my opinion. Lateral view is something different than dorsal view, this is not up for debate. One photo shows a lateral view and the other a dorsal view, and these are also facts, not opinions. --Gower (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Gower: Without wanting to start an argument, in my opinion the image quality is poor and it doesn't meet criterion 3. Please, let others debate it.--Pierre André (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: you could have written that right away, thank you for the review --Gower (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Scopula immorata ventral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Dibrivka (Tetiiv Hromada) - Agrarian Lyceum (view from the west)

 Comment @Nikride: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (COM:VIS), is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary school building in small Ukrainian village. Second thing: no category for that scope added/created. --Gower (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-14 17:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Dibrivka (Tetiiv Hromada) - Village council (view from the west)

 Comment @Nikride: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (COM:VIS), is that one more than local interest? I don't think so. Ordinary building in small Ukrainian village. Second thing: no category for that scope added/created. --Gower (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2025-11-13 23:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Girolamo Lombardo , David the Prophet
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-14 11:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Gallinago gallinago (Common snipe) in courtship flight, Seltjarnarnes, Iceland
Reason:
A clear and sharp photograph of a Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago) in display flight "drumming", photographs of this behaviour of this species are rare on Commons. -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk)

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-15 05:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Former entrance to the "Jacobins Museum," now the "Museum of the Americas" - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-15 05:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Gypsum, Niccioleta Mine, Tuscany, Italy
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-15 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Vase - Figure sitting cross-legged - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-14 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
potrait of Cisticola juncidis (Zitting Cisticola)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-15 07:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Emberiza cia

 Comment Best in scope, awesome photo, @Hobbyfotowiki: but I recommend adding GPS (criterion 5) and appropriate category for birds in Germany --Gower (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)  Comment Added GPS and cateogory @Gower: --Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 10:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-15 07:13 (UTC)
Scope:
singing Rock bunting (Emberiza cia)

 Comment With your great support, added GPS and cateogory @Gower: --Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-15
Scope:
Scopelodes venosa lateral view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-15
Scope:
Eucyclodes pastor dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-15
Scope:
Pitama lativitta dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tisha Mukherjee (talk) on 2025-11-15 17:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Calidris temminckii (Temminck's Stint) - wing-spreading
  •  Comment I wouldn't consider stretching to be a valuable scope and the English usage is technically unsound. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree with Charles that "stretching" is not the right sub-scope term. I also hesitate to add even more bird sub-scopes to an already large collection but I think this bird is engaging in characteristic behavior as described here:
"Birds engage in sunbathing or wing-spreading to regulate body temperature and optimize feather maintenance, which involves spreading preen oil, controlling parasites, and boosting their immune system."
If the bird was wet, the right sub-scope term could be "sunbathing" to dry their feathers. Here, this dry bird seems to be engaging in "wing-spreading" for the health benefits of avian care. Chickens and turkeys do this too. Suggest you change your sub-scope to "wing-spreading". --GRDN711 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC) @GRDN711: I have changed the sub scope, thank you for your suggestion. - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Useful and used with scope corrected. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Hispalois (talk) on 2025-11-15 18:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust on the tomb of Marie Dévéria, by her father Eugène Dévéria. Pau City Cemetery
Used in:
fr:Eugène Devéria
fr:Cimetière urbain de Pau
es:Cementerio urbano de Pau
Reason:
Only photograph of a statue made by Eugène Devéria -- Hispalois (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-15 20:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Theristicus melanopis (Black-faced ibis)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-15 20:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Theristicus melanopis (Black-faced ibis) on nest
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-15 20:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Theristicus melanopis (Black-faced ibis) in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-11-16 05:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Pinus sylvestris on the sand drift. of Aekingerzand
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-16 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Lucina pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Lucine), right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-16 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Auch - Liberation Square seen from the Town Hall

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-16 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Brunnera macrophylla 'Jack Frost' in Garden of the Museum of the Americas in Auch
However, with the addition of the location, I agree with Gower that the scope is too narrow. This plant cultivar can be grown in many other places and is not limited to this specific museum garden.
IMO, a wider scope similar to “Brunnera macrophylla, Jack Frost cultivar - leaf”, would be more effective for the VI nomination of your image. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose with regret, but extremely narrow scope, criterion 2, sorry @Archaeodontosaurus: I fully agree that there are fewer problems for the nominator (and greater chance for promotion), but what does it make sense for our project? Does this particular plant species deserve a scope relating to a specific garden in a specific city? I don't think so. That sub-scope does not contribute anything to the presentation of such species as flower, fruit, seed, leaves. "scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository" (COM:VICR) --Gower (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Gower: Your remarks are unfounded. They only serve to perpetuate a negative atmosphere in VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Sorry to hear that, but my remarks are founded on COM:VISC. For me, it's sad to have to come up with scopes that aren't very useful for the project just to get a VI because they wouldn't qualify for a more general scope. VI should serve the project nd not be a game of labeling photos. --Gower (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-16 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of a Young Girl by Eugène-Antoine Aizelin- Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-16 08:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Park in Kashperivka

 Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-16 10:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Palace in Brynek (exterior)
Reason:
Important Polish palace (more than local interest), cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-16 11:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Holy Spirit Church in Bytom (exterior)
Reason:
Important church from 17th century, cultural heritage monument in Poland. Rare example of polygonal shaped church as of Poland. -- Gower (talk)

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-16 11:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Prunella modularis
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-16 12:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Prunella modularis
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-16 12:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Lac de Bab Louta, Taza Province - view of central section from east-northeast
Used in:
wikidata:Q136804360
Reason:
This image shows more of the reservoir, including parts hidden by hills (see notes on the image). -- Tagooty (talk)

 Best in Scope and beautiful too--Gower (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-16 19:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Casa da Moeda (Lisbon)

 Best in Scope and good light --Gower (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Lucina pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Lucine), left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Reliquaire de St Léotade - Grand Chœur de la cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Acroterion 1st century AD. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-17 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Bottle with zoomorphic decorated neck. Lambayeque (culture) - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-17 08:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Operophtera brumata, female, lateral view
Reason:
Scope is limited to female due to extreme sexual dimorphism. Lateral view highlights specific anatomical features (reduced wings, structure of abdomen). So far, we have only two other photos of female lateral view of this species: 1 and 2 -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-17 08:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Kashperivka (Bila Tserkva Raion) - view from the northwest

 Question @Nikride: , what is beyond local interest in this building? (COM:VIS) It is cultural heritage monument of Ukraine or something like that, local attraction? --Gower (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gower: Former Zmyhrovskyi manor house (19th century) --Nikride (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikride: thanks for your answer, I understand. But has the importance of the object been somehow perceived by authorities of historians? Is it under conservator's protection or is it a tourist attraction or is it architecturally distinctive? --Gower (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gower: Officially, this building is not a monument and is private property. But it's definitely more than just local interest. https://ukrainaincognita.com/kyivska-oblast/tetiivskyi-raion/kashperivka/kashperivka-palats-nepalats-ta-tserkva-netserkva https://obukhiv.info/news/palatc-zmigrovskogo-na-kiivshchini-shcho-bulo-te-zagulo/ https://www.pslava.info/KashperivkaS_Palace,369404.html --Nikride (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-17 09:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Metellina merianae (male), lateral view
Reason:
So far only fully lateral view of male representative of this species on Commons. Displays its species characteristics, especially male pedipalp with bulbus. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-17 22:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestroides (Campo flicker) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-17 22:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestroides (Campo flicker) female

 Comment @Charlesjsharp: great photo, but the tail is not fully visible, maybe that yours File:Campo flicker (Colaptes campestris) female.JPG (current VI) or File:Colaptes campestris 3.jpg (if it's female) would be better? What do you think? --Gower (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-17 22:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes campestris campestroides (Campo flicker) female in flight
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Collège Sainte-Marie - Impasse Jérôme Cuzin à Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Three Shaouabtis - 3rd intermediate period - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Youth by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-11-18 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrogastra rolphii, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-11-18 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of St. Paul in Ruda Śląska, facade
Reason:
Church has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. Represents very unusual ornamentation, by famous architect Johannes Franziskus Klomp. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nikride (talk) on 2025-11-18 11:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Watermill in Dashiv - view from the southwest
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
TheNuggeteer (talk) on 2025-11-18 12:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Philippines AirAsia Puregold Livery
Reason:
Best image of the AirAsia Puregold Livery (only other image is File:RP-C8978 (36296170080).jpg, this is better) -- TheNuggeteer (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
TheNuggeteer (talk) on 2025-11-18 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
DoubleDragon Plaza Giant Statues
Reason:
Only image about the scope in Commons; the scope is discussed in numerous news articles. -- TheNuggeteer (talk)
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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
User:Giovanni Cardinali (talk) on 2025-07-08 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Karl Marx
Used in:
see Global file usage
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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 14:30, 16 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.