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.
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.
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
DeclinedVICs 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. UndecidedVICs 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 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:
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 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.
Reason:
I believe this to be the best portrait of Selena Gomez on WikiCommons. -- AquaAlien (talk)
Why? they are many other candidates and this is here a pure matter of taste. I’m afraid this nomination will remain undecided.--Jebulon (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Don't see value in a combined "flower and leaves" scope, especially for a species that forms clusters of tiny flowers. If the image is valuable to illustrate both, it can be valued in both. Not particularly valuable in the plain 'flowers' (flowers barely visible) or 'leaves' (only top views of fully expanded leaves present) scopes IMO. --Pitke (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason:
Another prisoner in the Newcastle prison in 1873. Restored. Convicted of stealing clothing and bed linen 5 times between 1867 and 1872. For these convictions she served a total of 11 months 14 days. -- Jebulon (talk)
Reason:
He was french born, who emigrated to the United States, then elected US senator for Louisiana, then US ambassador to Spain. Interesting person. Very damaged original, difficult restoration with GIMP and FLOW. -- Jebulon (talk)
Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Comment I understand the species scientific name is always more definitive and precise, but inclusion of "Sea Thrift" common name in the scope would be helpful. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Insect scope is confusing and too narrow with inclusion of the scientific names of two species. You must decide if you are nominating the caterpillar or the flower. Inclusion of a common name would also help meet COM:VIS scope guidelines for insect or flower scopes.
If the caterpillar, this this one looks better are prepresenting the Orthosia cerasi species to me. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I think we can agree, Archaeodontosaurus. Having the scientific names of two species makes the scope too narrow and confusing. In your previous scope, I would have guessed you were nominating the insect rather than the plant. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment The caterpillar is already promoted to VI... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment The scope would be OK if the caterpillar wasn't so blurred/hidden. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Oppose such a narrow and specific scope. '[Insect family] larva, eating' may be a decent scope. --Pitke (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment It appears that this species has been reclassified. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Myodes glareolus is not the universally accepted latest taxonomy for the bank vole. While widely used in many European databases, recent authoritative sources—including the Mammal Diversity Database and the American Society of Mammalogists — have reverted to the older generic name Clethrionomys, making the widely accepted current scientific name Clethrionomys glareolus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason:
Best in scope IMO for this portrait, restored by me, of the son, heir of queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, future king Edward VII, in 1862. See the file page for more informations. -- Jebulon (talk)
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. This was a very difficult restoration, but the subject deserved it. Please have a look on the original file. Very complete description. In use in several articles, french and english, plus wikidata -- Jebulon (talk)
Reason:
Best overall view of this RORO ferry by name that shows the ship in action as a local ferry in Digby Neck. -- GRDN711 (talk)
Comment Not easy to choose at all because almost all the photos in the scope are good... -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Agree there is more than one good image but I feel this one is best because the ship is moving on the water with a good view of the entire ship, rather than being stationary at the dock with partially blocked views. Also, as a ferry, the car deck is fully visible with this image rather than being blocked by the support wall. Further, while is it a double-ended ferry, this end is more the front end than the other. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Best in Scope Thank you for the explanations -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason:
The restoration of the day. Again an old damaged daguerreotype by Mathew Brady. Please look at the c.1845 original for comparison. W.B.Preston was Secretary of the US Navy, then US Senator of Virginia, then CS Senator of the same Commonwealth after the Secession. -- Jebulon (talk)
Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Best in Scope and used. Usually, a geographical indication is added, such as "view from the west, from the north," but in this case, I think there is only one viewpoint. -- JackyM59 (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Oppose The scope needs to distinguish that this is the Brivet River (Upper or Lower?) and not the Town of Brivet. Even then, the scope is too wide if representing the whole river, and not just a portion. Would be open to the thoughts of others on this last point. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Reason:
This is a free interpretation helped by AI of an old carte de visite portrait by Benjamin Falck, photographer from New York. The man is a famous american writer. Best in scope IM -- Jebulon (talk)
Reason:
Geocoded, visually pleasing and clearly conveying image showing entire plant at bloom, in habitat; scope has few geocoded images overall, of which File:Olsynium douglasii 38421.JPG and File:Olsynium douglasii 37696.JPG look like the closest competitors. Not used anywhere due to having been uncategorized until today. -- Pitke (talk)
Comment This is a excellent image but not typical of the species in the degree of curling of the cap. This species most often has a relatively flat or gently sloping cap. Suggest a scope that treats the curling as a sub-scope would work better here - "Laccaria laccata (The Deceiver) with extreme curling of the cap".
Also, the scope-link category should not be restricted to the Netherlands but should be the category for the whole species - Category:Laccaria laccata. Your comments are welcome. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I have adjusted the category.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Support I am not in favor of a scope-link to a species page because the images in the page are not all of the images of this species in Commons, just ones chosen for the page.
For this nomination, I went to the overall Category:Laccaria laccata for comparison that shows all images of this mushroom species. There were an additional couple of highly curled examples, particularly one from Germany, that showed merit. This VI nomination, however, both illustrates the scope and is of higher technical quality. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment Very interesting, but the file page in far much uncomplete. For instance, there is a special template you must use when you modify a picture with AI. the {retouched} is not enough, have a look to the file pages of my recent nominations. You should use « extracted from » with a link to the original and « images extracted » with a link to the cleaned picture. The scope is too large too if there is any other picture of this man. Furthermore, I think (matter of taste!) that your guy’s face looks a bit too « wax » and unnatural.--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Retouched template used (but I was linked the source file) --Ezarateesteban 13:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
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)
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.
Skip to image nominations
_Alstroemeria_aurea_'India_Snow'.jpg)
_-_Clotilde_on_the_beach_-_Valencia_1904_-_Inv.MS_670.jpg)
_Ilex_aquifolium.jpg)
_Armeria_maritima_-_inflorescence.jpg)
_Orthosia_cerasi_-_Caterpillar_eating_Lamium_purpureum_flowers.jpg)
_Drenthe.jpg)
_in_flight_Marken.jpg)
_Drenthe.jpg)
_-_18th_Century_Venetian_'Mirror'_Gilded_wood_and_glass.jpg)
_Euphorbia_amygdaloïdes_inflorescence.jpg)
_in_flight_Marken_2.jpg)
_female_Drenthe.jpg)
_breeding_Marken.jpg)
_breeding_male_Marken.jpg)
_non_breeding_Marken.jpg)
_male_Drenthe.jpg)
_Lanterne_d'une_galère_vénitienne_du_XVIe_siècle.jpg)
_Gymnocalycium_bayrianum_-_Jardin_Botanique_Henri_GAUSSEN.jpg)
._03-03-2026._(actm.)_01.jpg)
_Cercis_siliquastrum_-_Cauliflory_-_Flowers_and_fruits_-_Jardin_Botanique_Henri_GAUSSEN.jpg)
_-_André_Derain_-_La_clairière_Oil_on_canvas_(1904).jpg)
_male_Drenthe.jpg)
_female_Drenthe.jpg)
_in_flight_Marken.jpg)
.jpg)
._Locatie,_Paddenstoelenreservaat._14-10-2025._(d.j.b).jpg)
.jpg)
..jpg)
.jpg)
_May_2026.jpg)
_Alstroemeria_aurea_'India_Snow'.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Clotilde_on_the_beach_-_Valencia_1904_-_Inv.MS_670.jpg){kind=link}
_Ilex_aquifolium.jpg){kind=link}
_Armeria_maritima_-_inflorescence.jpg){kind=link}
_Orthosia_cerasi_-_Caterpillar_eating_Lamium_purpureum_flowers.jpg){kind=link}
_Drenthe.jpg){kind=link}
_in_flight_Marken.jpg){kind=link}
_Drenthe.jpg){kind=link}
_-_18th_Century_Venetian_'Mirror'_Gilded_wood_and_glass.jpg){kind=link}
_Euphorbia_amygdaloïdes_inflorescence.jpg){kind=link}
_in_flight_Marken_2.jpg){kind=link}
_female_Drenthe.jpg){kind=link}
_breeding_Marken.jpg){kind=link}
_breeding_male_Marken.jpg){kind=link}
_non_breeding_Marken.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Drenthe.jpg){kind=link}
_Lanterne_d'une_galère_vénitienne_du_XVIe_siècle.jpg){kind=link}
_Gymnocalycium_bayrianum_-_Jardin_Botanique_Henri_GAUSSEN.jpg){kind=link}
._03-03-2026._(actm.)_01.jpg){kind=link}
_Cercis_siliquastrum_-_Cauliflory_-_Flowers_and_fruits_-_Jardin_Botanique_Henri_GAUSSEN.jpg){kind=link}
_-_André_Derain_-_La_clairière_Oil_on_canvas_(1904).jpg){kind=link}
_male_Drenthe.jpg){kind=link}
_female_Drenthe.jpg){kind=link}
_in_flight_Marken.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Paddenstoelenreservaat._14-10-2025._(d.j.b).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_May_2026.jpg){kind=link}