Jump to content

Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI status

[edit]

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination.

Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)

[edit]

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this: 

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.

Renomination

[edit]

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in 

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with 

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued Review

[edit]

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: 

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidates

[edit]

How to review an image

[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure

[edit]
  • On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
 You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
 You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  •  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
 You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period

[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

[edit]
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
61,512 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 55,496 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,419 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,597 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

View
Nominated by:
Earth605 (talk) on 2025-12-16 14:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Takifugu rubripes (Japanese pufferfish)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-17 19:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Lepidocolaptes angustirostris (Narrow-billed woodcreeper) showing chest feathers
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-18 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Patagioenas maculosa (Spot-winged pigeon)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-18 19:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel de ville d'Aniche - Nord - France
Used in:

wikidata

wikidata
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-19 09:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Le printemps - 1573 by Arcimboldo - Musée du Louvre – Paris
Used in:
wikidata
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-19 11:08 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Atišta)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-19 11:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Theotokos (Jagol Dolenci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-19 11:15 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Jagol)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-19 15:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloephaga picta picta (Upland goose) male lateral view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-19 15:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloephaga picta picta (Upland goose) female
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-19 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloephaga picta picta (Upland goose) male in flight

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-19 16:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Female figurines - Valdivia Culture - Musée des Amériques

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-19 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Claude Bouilloux-Lafond by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-19 17:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Messe de saint Grégoire - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Reason:
This particular piece is the oldest extant example of Christian art in the Americas. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-19 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Divine imprint of Murugan Kovil' temple, view from Temple Rd, (Sri Lanka)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-12-20 03:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Souss-Massa National Park - Entrance at Sidi Birzarn, Eco Museum and Visitor Centre
Used in:
en:Souss-Massa National Park • wikidata:Q784621 • wikidata:Q137193481 and many others
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-12-20 05:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Ruinaulta Bend in the Rhine Gorge.

Best in scope, but not used...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-20 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrogastra plicatula ssp. grossa, shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-20 07:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Libation vessel - women - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-20 06:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Dans les Gaules by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch
  •  Best in Scope obviously, but I have  Question: @Archaeodontosaurus: do you know allegorical/symbolical meaning of that sculpture and what kind of bird is depicted? --Gower (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thank you for this very pertinent question. The French have remained very attached to our Gallic origins. The symbolic link between the title and the hunter is not narrative but evocative. The sculpture does not recount a specific Gallic myth; it offers an idealized vision of the Gaul as a young, primitive hunter, a figure of vigor, nature, and antiquity, conforming to the national and academic representations of the late 19th century.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC) -->[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-20 08:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Argenteuil - 1872 by Claude Monet - Musée d’Orsay – Paris
Used in:
wikidata
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2025-12-20 09:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Daya Chiker polje (depression), Taza Province - view from the southwest
Used in:
ceb:Daya Chiker • wikidata:Q27520263
Reason:
Note: a polje is a large flat plain found in limestone geologic regions -- Tagooty (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-20 11:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Brunémont, exterior - Nord - France
Used in:
wikidata
Reason:
The church dates from the 18th (1758) and 19th centuries. It escaped destruction during the First World War. -- JackyM59 (talk)

Scope changed from Bell tower porch of the Church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Brunémont to Church of Our Lady of the Assumption in Brunémont, exterior --JackyM59 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
  •  InfoI recently found this photo from 1917. It shows the church and people who are about to be evacuated to Belgium.

File:Brunémont - Evacuation vers la Belgique 1917.jpg- JackyM59 (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Best in Scope, @JackyM59: btw interesting photo from 1917, but you should indicate its source (own scan or book, internet etc.) and author should not be you, but photographer. If you don't know him, type |author={{unknown}} --Gower (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-20 10:31 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Bydgoska Street in Toruń, view from the south
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, former Stanisław Tempski villa, now registry office. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-20 11:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of St. Paul in Ruda Śląska, view from the west
Reason:
Church has cultural heritage monument in Poland status. Represents very unusual ornamentation, designed by famous architect Johannes Franziskus Klomp. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-20 09:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Ossuary at Saint James church fence in Toruń, view from the east
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 15th century. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-20 12:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Kratovo River in Kratovo
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the river. The river passes through the town of Kratovo and is famous for its numerous bridges. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-20 12:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Negotino power plant
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the power plant. The power plant has significant contribution to the country's energy production. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-20 12:38 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Prikovci)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in the 19th century. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-20 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Ex-voto dedicated to Ganesha (Kanniya Hot Springs), view in Trincomalee (Sri Lanka)
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-20 22:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes melanochloros melanochloros (Green-barred woodpecker) male

 Comment Sexual dimorphism is clear for this species; it would be useful to make two categories: Male and Female for easier voting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-20 22:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Colaptes melanochloros melanochloros (Green-barred woodpecker) female
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-20 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Numenius hudsonicus (Hudsonian whimbrel)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mari-massu (talk) on 2025-12-21 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:

- Photo reproductions of the painting referred to as Still Life with a Self-portrait by Pieter Claesz in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum

- Photo reproductions of still life paintings with a reflected self-portrait
Reason:
The official photograph of this painting at the museum's website. It has the highest resolution and sharpness when compared to other images of this painting which are blurred or overexposed. -- Mari-massu (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-21 06:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Iphigenia brasiliensis (Giant False Donax), slender form, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-21 06:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Bacchus by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-21 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Gel sur neige by Jean-Louis Rouméguère - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used. --Thi (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-21 06:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Spondylitis / 'Mullu' Chancay culture - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used (I think it is probably a Spondylus calcifer Carpenter, 1857) --Llez (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-21 08:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Popova Kula
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the winery. The picture nicely depicts a building of a winery. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-21 08:53 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George of Kratovo Church (Kratovo)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church was built in 1925, and its architecture is a blend of multiple styles. See the previous nomination here. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-21 09:08 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Selce)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  • @Gower: Yes, it’s a ‘pilgrimage place’ where liturgies take place regularly as it’s the only church in the village (note that the church has an apse containing the altar that is used for worshipping rituals). The village has always been inhabited by a majority of Turks (Sunni Muslims) and a minority of Macedonians (Orthodox Christians), so it used to have a mosque long before the church was built in 2015. Furthermore, the foundation stone of the church was consecrated by the Metropolitan of the Diocese of Bregalnica of the Macedonian Orthodox Church Hilarion, and the church is documented in reliable sources so it’s notable enough for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Kiril Simeonovski: , thanks for explanation; pilgrimage place for me is something like Fatima or Lourdes, not ordinary village church. I've read article about that church in Wikipedia and notability wasn't proven in my opinion, sorry. Foundation stone is almost always blessed by someone important. --Gower (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gower: I think you’re trying to apply criteria based on superficial and out-of-context comparisons to Catholic churches. In Orthodox Christianity, every church with an altar (and thereby apse) has regular liturgies and is used for weddings, baptisms and funerals. As this church is dedicated to Saint Demetrious, there’s also a regular gathering on his feast day (note that there’s a secondary building with a refectory in the church’s yard that is used for celebrating feast days). The rule that ‘Not every church is worh a Valued Image scope’ in this context applies to Orthodox Christian chapels (for instance, this, this and this) that are minor isolated religious buildings and are not worth stand-alone Wikipedia articles. The phrase ‘ordinary village church’ sounds harsh and insulting. People from vilages are Christians in the same way as people from towns, so their churches cannot be diminished just because they’re located in villages. Moreover, you shouldn’t forget that Macedonia was part of a Muslim country until 1912 and an atheist country from 1945 to 1991, so churches in many places were built for the first time after 1991 and, therefore, the year of construction is completely irrelevant. If you think that notability wasn’t proven in the Wikipedia article, you’re encouraged to nominate it for deletion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Kiril Simeonovski: , thanks for your further explanation; I'm from village so phrase ‘ordinary village church’ is neutral to me; in Poland we have tens of thousands of ‘ordinary village churches’ so I look at it from my Polish point of view. Every Catholic parish church also "has regular liturgies and is used for weddings, baptisms and funerals" and a regular gathering on patron's feast day. In Polish Wikipedia article about that kind of church, no matter Orthodox or Catholic, would be probably deleted (btw, we have strong group of deletionist Wikimedians). Let's wait for other voices in that nomination. I won't have a problem if this good and valuable photo gets VI. --Gower (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Thi (talk) on 2025-12-21 11:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Helene Schjerfbeck, Self-Portrait, Black Background
Used in:
fi:Helene Schjerfbeck (ca, cs, da, fr, nl)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-21 13:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Art Palace in Kraków, southeastern facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. Serves as art gallery. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-21 14:01 (UTC)
Scope:
17 Wolności Square in Puck, facade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument from 18th century. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-21 13:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Hedwig church in Ziemięcice, view from the west
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument, church ruins from 16th century. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SebastianBlumeArt (talk) on 2025-12-21 15:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Fittonia gigantea, leaf venation macro
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Julian Lupyan (talk) on 2025-12-21 16:48 (UTC)
Scope:
The playing drum of the carillon of the Belfry of Ghent, Belgium
Used in:
Carillon, Karillon

@Archaeodontosaurus: ✓ Done ---- Scope changed from Carillon drums to Playing drum of the carillon of the Belfry of Ghent, Belgium – Julian Lupyan (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-21 20:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Tachyeres pteneres (Flightless steamer-ducks) pair with male on left
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-21 20:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Tachyeres pteneres (Flightless steamer-ducks) swimming with male on left
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-21 20:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Arenaria interpres morinella (Ruddy turnstone) in flight
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 21:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Kraków Główny train station
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Galeria Krakowska
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 21:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Pawia Street in Kraków
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-22 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Iphigenia brasiliensis (Giant False Donax), slender form, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-22 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Leptophyes punctatissima Female, laying her eggs.

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-22 06:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Bacchus as a child by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-22 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Funeral mask in Tumbaga Lambayeque (culture) - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-22 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Krummelsches Haus, Wernigerode
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 22:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Jan Nowak-Jeziorański Square in Kraków
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Igor123121 (talk) on 2025-12-21 21:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Strzelecki Garden in Kraków
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-22 08:07 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Burilovci), exterior
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. The church built in the 9th century in the middle Byzantine style, and it is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-22 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:St. Nicholas Church (Burilovci), altar
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the altar. The church is famous for its relatively well-preserved frescos from the 14th century, especially in the altar. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-22 08:15 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Kozjak)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of the church. It was built in the 9th or 10th century and is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-22 16:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz W18 in Gangaramaya Temple (Colombo), left front view
Open for review.

}


Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Rolls-Royce Twenty in the Gangaramaya Temple (Colombo), front view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:30 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Bankowa Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, former bank, now university building. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Holy Trinity church in Wodzisław Śląski, exterior
Reason:
Medieval church, cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-22 17:34 (UTC)
Scope:
7 Bałtycka Street in Hel, view from the west
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument, former house of the lighthouse keeper. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-12-22 18:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Façade of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Grace in Cambrai - Nord - France
Used in:

wikidata

wikidata
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-22 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Leucocarbo magellanicus (Magellanic cormorant) showing chest feathers

 Comment As its Latin name suggests, the bird is black and white. The blue color of its plumage is incorrect. It's easy to correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-22 20:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Leucocarbo magellanicus (Magellanic cormorant) showing back feathers
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-22 20:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Thamnophilus ruficapillus (Rufous-capped antshrike)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Incendie au crépuscule by Jean-Louis Rouméguère - Musée des Amériques - Auch

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Siku - Intermediate Periode Reeds and textiles - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Annachlamys striatula, orange form, right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pangalau (talk) on 2025-12-23 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Istana Darussalam
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:26 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Slepče)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 17th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicholas Church (Zrze)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. c -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2025-12-23 08:31 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Stephen's Church (Konče)
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 14th-century church, which is a national cultural heritage site. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-23 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Dendrocygna bicolor (Fulvous whistling ducks) pair with chicks
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-23 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Netta peposaca (Rosy-billed pochard) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-12-23 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Jacana jacana jacana (Wattled jacana) with eggs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2025-12-23 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Temple of the Tooth, Sitting Buddha statues, view in Mahanuwara Kandy, (Sri Lanka)
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Best image in the category Devil's Wall
Reason:
This is the most representative image of this rock formation. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Best image in the category Pilav Tepe
Reason:
This is the most representative image of this volcanic cone. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ehrlich91 (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Best image in the category Srbinovo Bridge
Reason:
This is the most representative image of this bridge. -- Ehrlich91 (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-23 18:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Pentecostal church in Prudnik, exterior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland, former Jewish pre-burial house. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-23 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
30 Warszawska Street in Katowice, façade
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland from 1870. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gower (talk) on 2025-12-23 19:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Methodist church in Wrocław, interior
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Poland. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-23 22:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Pharomachrus mocinno (Resplendent quetzal) male with non breeding tail, ventral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-23 22:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Colibri cyanotus (Lesser violetear) displaying its "ears" to another bird
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2025-12-23 22:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Aulacorhynchus prasinus (Emerald toucanet)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-24 07:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Return from hunting by Antonin Carlès - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-12-24 07:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Aiolopus strepens female lateral view
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

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

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

Pending valued image set candidates

[edit]
   
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1008566955"