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
62,681 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,513 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,550 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,618 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
IssamBarhoumi (talk) on 2026-03-05 10:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Whirling dervishes
Reason:
I think that this image could be a valued Image because it ilustrates all the ritual of Mevelvi Order and all the members of the ritual are in the scene -- IssamBarhoumi (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-08 08:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Funeral mask in Tumbaga 83.02.001 - Lambayeque (culture) - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-08 08:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Photinia serratifolia Immature inflorescences
  •  Best in Scope, but maybe scope category could be changed to

Category:Photinia serratifolia inflorescences? --Gower (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment You're asking the right questions. There's the bud, whose appearance at the beginning is very close to the immature inflorescence, and finally: the inflorescence, which is very different from the two. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-08 10:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Large odalisque with bayadère breeches, Lithograph by Henri Matisse
Reason:
 Support A lot of bayadères by Matisse exists, but no other cadidate in the scope--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC) -- JackyM59 (talk)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-08 13:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Former general hospital of Cambrai, exterior seen from the north
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2026-03-08 15:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of SS. Peter and Paul in Piekary Śląskie – exterior, view from the south
Reason:
Church designed by Ludwig Schneider, cultural heritage monument with own article. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-08 16:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Ritual mask of Ivory Coast
Reason:
From the Musée d'Art et d'Archéologie du Périgord. Geocoded. Beautiful by itself, best in scope IMO -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-08 17:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Jeune chasseur by Jacques-Léonard Maillet
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. See other files: File:Musée d'art et d'archéologie du Périgord - Jacques-Léonard Maillet - Le jeune chasseur exposé dans le cloître.jpg et File:Musée d'art et d'archéologie du Périgord - Jacques-Léonard Maillet - Le jeune chasseur.jpg -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-08 17:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Sts. Peter and Paul Church (Bistrica), exterior view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-08 18:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Sts. Peter and Paul Church (Bistrica), interior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from the interior of this monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-08 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Bistrica (Veles), aerial view from south
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment File:Поглед на Бистрица 3.jpg shows almost the same view of the village and fields, but it also shows the distant skyline. To me, this gives a better impression of the mountainous setting of the village. --Tagooty (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2026-03-08 20:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Sainte-Eulalie de Sainte-Eulalie-de-Cernon
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 02:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-09 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Calibrachoa 'Cabaret Purple' flowers

 Oppose Good image of this Calibrachoa varietal. Unfortunately, with two scientific names, scope is too narrow, overly descriptive and confusing. Suggest using a simpler, generic scope such as "Calibrachoa 'Cabaret Purple' - pollination by insect". The insect species identification is good information to know and could be included in image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support With change of scope to best flowers of 'Cabaret Purple' cultivar of Calibrachoa species, strike my oppose and now support. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-09 09:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Former military hospital of the Château de Selles de Cambrai , seen from the South-West
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
A S M Jobaer (talk) on 2026-03-09 11:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Tajhat Palace , seen from the front - Rangpur – Bangladesh
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-03-09 20:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Veraison of olives, before harvest
Reason:
It is the very moment to harvest olives for oil in Greece, when the fruit are just half red and half green. Best in scope IMO -- Jebulon (talk)

 Support Regardless of the language, "veraison" is not an easy word to use in conversation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC) oh yes it is, when you are in an olive-trees orchard in Greece at the end of october --Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
<> Oppose<> The concept of veraison as the optimum state of maturation for pressing, is also applied to grapes for wine making. I see no reason that veraison should be any different for olives in Greece versus olives in Italy, Spain, Morroco or Tunisia.
Suggest the scope be less narrow and simpler, without the addition of country, such as "Veraison of olives".
Be aware that with that more generic scope, this image also illustrates that scope well. You may have to come up with a variation. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"in Greece", because they are my olives, in my garden, and they are in Greece ! ;) Ok, I've changed the scope. Here they are perfect half-ripe, just ready for the harvest, one day more, and it will be to late. --Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Strike my oppose and now support with revised more generic scope. You did a good job of tuning the scope to distinguish between véraison of olives before and after harvest. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am an olive oil producer from Crete and in my opinion this is not a good picture of ripe olives. Just take a look at the pictures of my Koroneiki olives in my image collection, then you'll know what good pictures of olives should look like. --Petro Stelte (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment IMHO :), Between two olive oil producers, could be a dangerous place to be... --GRDN711 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but the olives in the picture look very poor. I even feel sorry for them.--Petro Stelte (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • i am not an olive producer, I am just an owner of "some" olive trees in Evia and they give very good olives for an excellent oil. These olives are not "ripe", they are just "enough ripe" for harvest. A link to your pictures of your Koroneiki should be interesting. You should use one of them to contest mine for comparison, and I think you use quite arrogant words, my friend. This is not necessary and there are other ways to convince people...--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-09 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Dolno Melničani, aerial view from north-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-09 20:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Novak, aerial view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-09 20:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Pralenik, aerial view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alu (talk) on 2026-03-09 22:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Merops apiaster (European bee-eaters), copulation
Reason:
High-quality image illustrating the copulation behaviour of Merops apiaster. -- Alu (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 2026-03-10
Scope:
Lethe distans (Scarce Red Forester), dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-10 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Nerita polita (Polished Nerite), shell

 Comment As you already have VIs for the brown and white forms of shell for this species, suggest a scope similar to "Nerita polita (Polished Nerite), grey form, shell". --GRDN711 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-10 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Diquis art - Zoomorphic metata with feline decoration - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-10 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Photograph - Joseph Boissière in his studio

 Support very useful and interesting. I have added another category--Jebulon (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-10 22:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Trstenik, Kavadarci, aerial view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-10 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Trstenik Rocks, geological formation near Trstenik
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this geological formation. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-10 22:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Moklište Lake, aerial view from north
Reason:
This is the only picture of this lake, and it is quite representative. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium (talk) on 2026-03-10 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
New clinic, Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen, Southwest View
Reason:
Relevant hospital, only image in scope. -- Aciarium (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-03-11 05:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Baselgia catolica Sogn Gieri (Surcuolm) Main entrance.
Reason:
This is an image of a cultural property of regional significance in Switzerland with KGS number
10815
-- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-11 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Muticaria macrostoma ssp. oscitans, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-11 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Votive dish with a rim decorated with geometric patterns. - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-11 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Upper part of a high altar - Cathédrale Sainte-Marie d'Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-11 08:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Didier Church of Oisy-le-Verger, seen from the south
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-11 12:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of a lion resting its left paw on the head of an animal , Louvre Museum
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-11 22:09 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Vladilovci), exterior view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-11 22:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Izvor (Veles), aerial view from north-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-11 22:41 (UTC)
Scope:
French Cemetery (Gorno Jabolčište), military monnument from World War I
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture from this military monument dedicated to the deceased French soldiers in World War I. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-12 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel of the Assumption (10) of the Sainte-Marie Cathedral of Auch

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-03-12 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Azolla filiculoides in Botanical garden Henri GAUSSEN, Toulouse

 Comment For a plant, the scope should not include the location, unless it is a visually-distinct geographical variant. The linked category should be Category:Azolla filiculoides --Tagooty (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-03-12 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Mya truncata (Blunt Gaper), right valve

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-12 13:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Bab Jemaa, Taza - stairs and outside of wall
Used in:
wikidata:Q60523076 • fr:Liste des monuments de Taza • en:List of monuments in Taza
Reason:
Bab Jemaa is a gate in the wall surrounding the old city of Taza, located on a hilltop. The new city is on the plains below. -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-03-12 13:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Bab Jemaa, Taza - upper side of wall
Used in:
wikidata:Q60523076
Reason:
Bab Jemaa is a gate in the wall surrounding the old city of Taza, located on a hilltop. The new city is on the plains below. -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Petro Stelte (talk) on 2026-03-12 15:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Monte Forte Fortress, Sitia, Crete, Greece - view from the northeast.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-12 16:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of the Dauphin Francis II (Louvre N 1253), Louvre Museum

I love it, and it is the best in scope  Support in my opinion ( Comment about the scope, If he is "le dauphin", then he is not (yet) "Francis II." !)--Jebulon (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-12 22:51 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Beljakovce), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-12 22:57 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nedela Church (Gabreš), exterior view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this monastery church, which is famous for its unusual architecture with a basement and a staircase leading to the entrance. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-03-12 23:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Kundino, aerial view from south
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
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=1008566955"