Commons:VIC

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

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)

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

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

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

How to review an image

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

  • 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 typeYou getWhen
*{{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

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

candidate list Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
63,040 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,849 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,567 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,624 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations


   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-12 05:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiesa di Sant'Anna (Venezia) - West exposure
Reason:
The facade that was never finished -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)

 Best in Scope and used --JackyM59 (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
 Oppose Scope is just a little too wide. This image is not the entire church; it is a specific side. Suggest a scope similar to "Chiesa di Sant'Anna, Venice - unfinished east/west/south/north(?) facade". --GRDN711 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Support Strike my oppose and now support with revised scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is good and best in valuable scope. Interesting place by the way.--Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 01:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-13 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
BYD Atto 2 DM-i - left front view
Used in:
en:List of BYD Auto vehicles, en:BYD Atto 2
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 01:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-13 15:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz X244 - left rear view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz X 244/X 248, en:Mercedes-Benz GLB, uk:Mercedes-Benz GLB-Клас
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 01:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-13 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Toyota Aygo X Hybrid - left front view
Used in:
de:Toyota Aygo, en:Toyota Aygo X, uk:Toyota Aygo X
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 01:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-14 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Artemisia ludoviciana 'Valerie Finnis' - a young shoot

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-14 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Pinctada radiata (Atlantic pearl-oyster), right valve
  •  Best in Scope and used. The highest definition. -- JackyM59 (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nayan j Nath (talk) on 2026-04-14 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Goru Bihu , It documents an important cultural tradition and practice of Assam's most valued Rangali Bihu festival.
Reason:
Goru Bihu has always been an important part of Assamese culture, especially in highlighting the bond between people and their cattle. However, due to the decline in cattle domestication ,this age old tradition is slowly losing its place and may fade away in the coming years if the trend continues. -- Nayan j Nath (talk)
  •  Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Best in scope and Used. -AjayDas (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The category is fine. The scope is too long: comments should be posted separately in the "reason" field. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
 Comment If the category is appropriate, a longer scope should not be an issue, as it can be edited.-Nayan j Nath (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-14 08:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Façade of the Rue (Somme) belfry exterior seen from the west- France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Paramanu Sarkar (talk) on 2026-04-14 08:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Lanius excubitor (Great Grey Shrike)

@GRDN711: @Archaeodontosaurus: I have not enough expertise in identifying sub-species, I am really sorry. But there is already a VI for lahtora sub-species, If this is the same I will have to withdraw the nomination, can you please help me? - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Reluctantly oppose with current scope. Paramanu Sarkar - your current VI scope claim is that this image is the best and most valuable of the entire Lanius excubitor (Great Grey Shrike) species. Unfortunately there are several others, such as this one or this one or this one, that are as good or better.
While you were not explicit, I believe the VI you reference is an image by Charles Sharp that was nominated under VI scope "Lanius meridionalis lahtora (Southern grey shrike)" (look at VI nomination). Though related, Lanius meridionalis lahtora (Southern Spain) and Lanius excubitor lahtora (southern Pakistan and northern India) are not the same species.
The Lanius excubitor (Great Grey Shrike) is found across much of the world and has, per Wikipedia, 12 sub-species. Only the Lanius excubitor lahtora sub-species is found in India where this image was taken. If you can verify that this image represents this more limited L.e. lahtora sub-species, this would be a more reasonable VI scope than the entire Great Grey Shrike species. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-04-14 16:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Henri Louis Achille Denis
Used in:
wikidata
Reason:
Best in scope for this restoration -- Jebulon (talk)
  •  Support. Great restoration. In the future, you can get a slightly less compressed version by requesting the PNG version of the IIIF manifest. JayCubby (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Τhanks for the tip ! ;)) I already knew that for the full size uploads, (but not in .png), see my users page. First I thought it would be an easy restoration, but actually it was not ! But I like thes kinds of challenges.--Jebulon (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-04-15 04:26 (UTC)
Scope:
MFC it Kattehûs Jirnsum, Rijksweg 180.

 Best in Scope--JackyM59 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-15 05:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Bell tower of the Saint-Wulphy church in Rue (Somme) exterior seen from the west- France
Reason:
Neoclassical style church, built in 1833 -- JackyM59 (talk)

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-15 05:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Pinctada radiata (Atlantic pearl-oyster), left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-15 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Spiraea × vanhouttei 'Gold Fountain' Immature inflorescence

 Support Best in scope and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-15 16:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel of the Hospice of Rue (Somme) exterior seen from the west- France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France -- JackyM59 (talk)

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-16 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Haworthia cymbiformis - Young plants

 Comment As a sub-scope, "young plants" seems a more descriptive term than a stage of plant life. What distinguishes this imae from being an adult plant? --GRDN711 (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  •  Comment Thank you for your input; I have difficulty reading as I am dyslexic. The "adult plants" produce flowers and the leaves are thicker. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-16 05:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Patella ordinaria, shell

 Best in Scope--JackyM59 (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-16 07:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Medieval half-timbered house in Rue (Somme) exterior seen from the south- France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France -- JackyM59 (talk)

This one is not that bad neither, but yours is better, the best in scope. Good use in Infobox. --Jebulon (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-04-16 16:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Auguste Louvrier de Lajolais
Reason:
New in Commons and unique in scope. We had a category of some works of this french painter, but no portraits of him. Now it is added in Wikidata and articles. -- Jebulon (talk)
  •  Support Goodo restoration. (I have a few in progress myself, including of my old nemesis the glass negative) JayCubby (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you. What do you want to do (different) with glass negatives ? I have some in my own personal collection, but I use them after transformation in positives.--Jebulon (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • If there is a fleck left in a photo I'm restoring, I feel obligated to remove it. Glass negatives pick up lots of flecks and as such take a bit longer than positive prints. (I have no plate negatives, unless you count the 1880s tintype I picked up at a junkshop). JayCubby (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 17 April 2026
Scope:
Symbrenthia silana (Scarce Jester ), dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 17 April 2026
Scope:
Neptis soma soma (Sylhet Creamy Sailer), dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 17 April 2026
Scope:
Baoris pagana (Figure-of-8 Swift), ventral
  •  Oppose Unsuitable scope for this nomination, there's no relationship to a ventral view. "Baoris pagana (Figure-of-8 Swift), resting" or "Baoris pagana (Figure-of-8 Swift), side view" would fit this image better. I would support this image becoming VI under one of those changed scopes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 17 April 2026
Scope:
Delias hyparete ethire (Kalinga Painted Jezebel), ventral
  •  Oppose Unsuitable scope for this nomination, there's no relationship to a ventral view. "Delias hyparete ethire (Kalinga Painted Jezebel), resting" or "Delias hyparete ethire (Kalinga Painted Jezebel), side view" would fit this image better. I would support this image becoming VI under one of those changed scopes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 17 April 2026
Scope:
Lethe europa europa (Dakhan Bamboo Treebrown), ventral
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Grand-Duc (talk) on 2026-04-17 03:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Lindenallee in Meiningen.
Reason:
This image should show the main important points of the Lindenallee (lime tree avenue) in Meiningen: elevation/road profile, usage, its environment. -- Grand-Duc (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-17 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Cultellus maximus, right valve
  •  Best in Scope and used. -- JackyM59 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-17 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhododendron ponticum - flower bud
  •  Best in Scope and used. The only one in high definition -- JackyM59 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-17 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Grevillea banksii - Immature inflorescence
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-04-17 16:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Charles de Ribbe
Reason:
Alone in scope, restored because very damaged. Restoration was tedious. This man was an historian of Provence, a sociologist and an agronomist. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-17 19:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Nevers Gate of Saint-Valery-sur-Somme , exterior seen from the west (town side) - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-17 20:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Valloires Abbey, abbey buildings exterior seen of the gardens (from the east) - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France -- JackyM59 (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)

Closed valued image candidates


Pending Most valued review candidates

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

   
Category:Valued image candidates#Valued%20image%20candidates Category:Valued images#Valued%20image%20candidates