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

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
63,217 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 57,010 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,576 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,631 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations


   

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-02 06:34 (UTC)
Scope:
The historic center of Durbuy seen from the summit of the anticline rock - Belgium, exterior seen from the southeast

 Best in Scope and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
 Support but would like to see a simpler, more generic scope such as "Historic Durbury center, Belgium - southeast view from anticline summit". --GRDN711 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-02 11:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Zethera pimplea pimplea (Northern wallacean) underside

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-03 05:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Coecella chinensis, right valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-03 05:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Clematis armandii – Flower

Is it really grey in colour? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-03 09:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Joseph Vance, daguerreotype
Reason:

This man was an important politician from Ohio, United States, before the Civil War. I chose it because the original daguerreotype by Mathew Brady was excellent, but very damaged, so the restoration was very interesting.

  •  Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Your image summary labels for extraction, retouch and digitally AI modification for an cleaned-up portrait original are complete and well done. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you Gordon for support and very kind comment. I try to do my best. In my opinion, a clean and clear file page is as important as the picture itself.--Jebulon (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
-- Jebulon (talk)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-03 10:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Pierre Bretonneau, daguerreotype
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. Portrait by Nadar of this famous french doctor (an hospital in Paris is named after him). Very interesting restoration, but very difficult (see original file). Good help from IA named "flow", by Google. -- Jebulon (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-03 10:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Danaus melanippus edmondii (Philippine white tiger) dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-03 10:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Coelognathus erythrurus (Philippine rat snake)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-03 10:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Junonia hedonia zelima (Brown pansy) underside

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
New York-air (talk) on 2026-05-03 12:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Tost BZT2 brake system of a Glider aircraft
Reason:
It's a picture of a brake system often used at gliding aircraft. It's one of the only two pictures and imo has a very good quality. -- New York-air (talk)

scope should mention Tost and model/type from file name. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, now it does -New York-air (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-03 16:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Antoine César Becquerel, daguerreotype
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. Restoration with FLOW and GIMP. Tedious and difficult. Of course original version by Nadar available in file history page. -- Jebulon (talk)

 Support Best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-03 17:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Edward Knight Collins daguerreotype
Reason:
Good restoration (Helped by GIMP and FLOW) of a very dammaged portrait by Mathew Brady of this american merchant and shipping magnate. Best in scope IMO, see original file for comparison.  Question Is it allowed to nominate an AI-colorized version of this picture ? I've tried something and I find the result very spectacular (see file page). Thanks for answer. Anyway, the current candidate is this one, and not the colorized one. -- Jebulon (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-05-03 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz X174 - left front view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-05-03 18:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz X174 - left rear view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-05-03 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Renault Twingo E-Tech - right front view
Used in:
de:Renault Twingo, de:Retrodesign

 Support Best in scope and used --Pierre André (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-04 05:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Coecella chinensis, left valve
  •  Best in Scope ans used -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-04 05:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Anacampseros rufescens 'sunrise'
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-04 10:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Cornufer pelewensis (Palau frog) female
  •  Best in Scope ans used --JackyM59 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-04 10:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Emoia caeruleocauda (Pacific bluetail skink)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-04 10:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Lamprolepis smaragdina viridipuncta (Emerald tree skink)

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-04 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Nicholas Wiseman Restored daguerreotype by Mathew Brady
Reason:
I chose this picture because it was very damaged and I like the result of the restoration with GIMP and Flow. This Cardinal was the first roman catholic bishop of Westminster, England. Best in the scope IMO. Please see the original file for comparison. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JPD115 (talk) on 2026-05-04 18:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Orient Express Corinthian (ship, 2026)
  •  Comment Please specify information and vessel positions. --Pierre André (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for comment, position and more information done. --JPD115 13:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
     Comment It is important to specify port or starboard, stern or bow, best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks Pierre André, i understand the comment, right now i will had each time the point of view from the object. Regards--JPD115 21:36, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
     Comment Please examine how the scope should be constructed as in this example Valeriya (ship, 1971), port side view.Regards. --Pierre André (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-05-05 03:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Admiralty Head Lighthouse, Whidbey Island - southeast facade
Used in:
en:Admiralty Head Light • wikidata:Q2288135
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-05-05 04:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Pipe organ of the Reformierte Kirche Ilanz

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-05 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Hoodia macrantha
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-05 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Vexillum discolorium (Sundry Coloured Mitre), shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-05 05:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Danthine Menhir in Wéris (Durbuy) - Belgium, exterior seen from the southwest
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-05 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Pierre Jules Baroche, standing portrait, by Eugène Disdéri
Reason:
Best in scope IMO, with a complete file page. A traditional official photograph of the time of the french Second Empire. This man was a jurist, a chief justice, a minister several times, during the reign of Napoleon IIIrd. Difficult to clean and restore. -- Jebulon (talk)

 Comment It's impressively realistic. It gives a strange effect because it's perhaps much sharper and more defined than the original photo.--JackyM59 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)  Support It seems like a brilliant AI restoration. Wheather that is 'ethically' OK or not, I don't know. So I say to myself - would the photographer and subject have liked it? I think they would. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for comments and support. please notice that if I use AI softwares for major and repetitive corrections, I work on all my pictures by myself alone too. And the AI works well only if you give it the good and relevant orders. This is just another way to post-product pictures.--Jebulon (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
 Comment In this VI nom, you have included the name of portrait photographer. In others (ex: Mathew Brady, Nadir), you have not. IMHO, the original image should carry the name of the original portrait photographer or their studio. However, after copying from the original, followed by manual retouching and AI restoration, the result is somewhat removed from (and possibly better than), the original decaying print. For curious, what are your thoughts on inclusion of the original photographer in the VI nom? --GRDN711 (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  • This is a question of « scope » in the VI nomination. Several portraits of Baroche, standing, exist in Commons. I wanted to reduce the scope in portrait only by Eugène Disdéri, so we can nominate portraits of Baroche by Petit, Nadar, or any other old photographer.
  •  Comment Responding to the question on colorizing old prints. Yours looks brilliant, but if you had done it two years ago, it might have looked rubbish. And there would be many who might add colour, for instance to medal ribbons, which might be difficult to check. The result could not be described as a restoration though. And you did the face; others might invent tie, frock, or wallpaper colours. Probably best to keep them away from VI for now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-05 18:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Stele with a decree of proxeny and euergetism from the Athenians in honor of Phanocritus of Parion - Louvre Museum - Paris

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-06 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Pyrus pyrifolia pyrifolia (inflorescence)
  •  Comment There seems to be a scope problem which is not sending to the "Pyrus pyrifolia (flowers)" category. -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @JackyM59: ✓ Done Oops Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Best in Scope and used (Even though the photo is 100% heavily edited by the smartphone)-- JackyM59 (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-06 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Delima bilabiata ssp. biasolettiana, shell

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Swardeepak (talk) on 2026-05-06 08:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Black-rumped Flameback, female (Dinopium benghalense ssp. Dinopium benghalense puncticolle)

Please look at other nominations to see how we format VI scopes. I prefer this image as VI (and FP) for the female and will support. I do not know why both @Tisha Mukherjee and Paramanu Sarkar: reverted your good faith edit on enwiki. Perhaps they can have another look. Being FP carries no weight if there is a better non-FP image available on Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)@Charlesjsharp: Previously many people insisted that I use my images including you, now while they are being used people are not liking it. No one likes it when their images are replaced that's the reason I never wanted to replace anyone's image. If those badges (FP VI and QI) makes no difference why do we spend hours to get them? And why people spend hours reviewing them either? - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: The image used is already a VI, FP and QI and to me way better than the one is nominated. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Thank you Charlesjsharp. I did feel my photo was better in virtually every parameter, be it sharpness, colour depth and plumage and features detail including eye colour and a clear look at all 4 toes of the left leg.

Swardeepak 22:25, 6 May 2026

  • But please look at other nominations to see how we format VI scopes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Opposed as we already have an FP of the female. If you want to nominate this image you have to take it to MVR. Yes @Tisha Mukherjee and Paramanu Sarkar: , I encourage all users (like you Tisha) who take high quality photos to add their images to Wiki articles, but you should only replace an existing image if it is the best (on technical merit and EV). This nominated image, though small, is better on both counts in my view. I did support your image at VI, but missed this one. I was surprised your image made FP as the head is not in focus and there is some issue around the top of the beak. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Yes I do exactly as you said, I replace only if I find it better otherwise not and with good intensions and not just promote self images. Our perspectives may differ but I truly find Tisha's photo less noisy, better feather details and includes much more color data which this image lacks. But I welcome your opinion. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-06 09:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Argiope appensa (Hawaiian garden spider) female ventral

 Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-06 09:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Neurothemis terminata (Straight-edge red parasol) male dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-06 09:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthetrum chrysis (Brown-backed red marsh hawk) male, lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2026-05-07 05:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Official portrait of Barack Obama (December 2012)

Previous reviews

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-07 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Acila divaricata (Divaricate Nut Clam), right valve

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-07 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Jeune fille au foulard rouge (Young girl with a red headscarf)

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-07 09:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhinocypha colorata (Philippine jewel) male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-07 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthetrum serapia (Green skimmer) male dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-07 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Diplacina bolivari male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen (keep talking) on 2026-05-07 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Kartikpur Jomidar Bari (south-east exposure, front)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-07 11:33 (UTC)
Scope:
The passenger building of Cambrai railway station - France, exterior seen from the southwest
Reason:
Built between 1904 and 1911 and restored after each world war -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Grunpfnul (talk) on 2026-05-07 15:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Daniel Goffart
Used in:

 Support best in scope and useful.--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-05-07 17:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Side of the house on the De Leare, Farmhouse from 1663 East side.

 Best in Scope The only one --JackyM59 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC) 18:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-08 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Crepis vesicaria – infructescences

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-08 05:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Acila divaricata (Divaricate Nut Clam), left valve

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-05-08 10:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Gurdwara Parmeshar Dwar Sahib (front view, view from south-east)

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-05-08 10:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Gate of Kalimpong College (front view)
Reason:
only picture of this college on commons -- KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
KuldeepBurjBhalaike (Talk) on 2026-05-08 10:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of Sonam Tshering Lepcha (front view)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-08 14:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Risiocnemis serrata male
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-08 14:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Bombus bicoloratus (Bicoloured bumble bee) dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-08 14:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Bombus bicoloratus (Bicoloured bumble bee) lateral view
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-08 18:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Mary Todd Lincoln, Wife of Abraham Lincoln, young, 1846/1847
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. Warning, there are other restorations of the original picture, please compare. -- Jebulon (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

Scope

   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Paramanu Sarkar (talk) on 2026-04-23 07:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Dinopium benghalense (Black-rumped Flameback) - female.

I'm afraid you will have to create male and female categories with so mnay images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  • @Charlesjsharp: I did search for Dinopium benghalense female and found only a few valid images of the same, that's the reason I didn't create a new category. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  • But we cannot be expected to go through so many images. I you create the new categories and put the right images into them, we will trust that you have checked all the relevant images - ignoring obviously poor quality ones. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sexual dimorphism exists in this species. It is useful to create two subcategories. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)@Charlesjsharp and Archaeodontosaurus: I have gone through the images and created a sub category for female and left the males in the main category. I have changed the scope too. Thank you - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)*  Comment
  •  Support Thanks. I think better to create male category too so that subsequent images end up in the right place. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)@Charlesjsharp: done that, thanks. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Swardeepak (talk) on 2026-05-06 08:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Black-rumped Flameback, female (Dinopium benghalense ssp. Dinopium benghalense puncticolle)

Please look at other nominations to see how we format VI scopes. I prefer this image as VI (and FP) for the female and will support. I do not know why both @Tisha Mukherjee and Paramanu Sarkar: reverted your good faith edit on enwiki. Perhaps they can have another look. Being FP carries no weight if there is a better non-FP image available on Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)@Charlesjsharp: Previously many people insisted that I use my images including you, now while they are being used people are not liking it. No one likes it when their images are replaced that's the reason I never wanted to replace anyone's image. If those badges (FP VI and QI) makes no difference why do we spend hours to get them? And why people spend hours reviewing them either? - Tisha Mukherjee (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: The image used is already a VI, FP and QI and to me way better than the one is nominated. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Thank you Charlesjsharp. I did feel my photo was better in virtually every parameter, be it sharpness, colour depth and plumage and features detail including eye colour and a clear look at all 4 toes of the left leg.

Swardeepak 22:25, 6 May 2026

  • But please look at other nominations to see how we format VI scopes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Opposed as we already have an FP of the female. If you want to nominate this image you have to take it to MVR. Yes @Tisha Mukherjee and Paramanu Sarkar: , I encourage all users (like you Tisha) who take high quality photos to add their images to Wiki articles, but you should only replace an existing image if it is the best (on technical merit and EV). This nominated image, though small, is better on both counts in my view. I did support your image at VI, but missed this one. I was surprised your image made FP as the head is not in focus and there is some issue around the top of the beak. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Yes I do exactly as you said, I replace only if I find it better otherwise not and with good intensions and not just promote self images. Our perspectives may differ but I truly find Tisha's photo less noisy, better feather details and includes much more color data which this image lacks. But I welcome your opinion. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.
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