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
62,948 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 56,764 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,563 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,621 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations


   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-03-28 07:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours Chapel in Écaillon , exterior seen from the southeast - Nord - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. Dated 1673. -- JackyM59 (talk)
  •  Support Best in scope, useful and used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiril Simeonovski (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for the nomination, but it is not signed. -- JackyM59 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-03-29 19:11 (UTC)
Scope:
BMW G32 - left rear view

 Comment Useful, but other images in the category are sharper and provide more details. Sorry. --Aciarium ⚒ (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Thi (talk) on 2026-03-31 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Freedom of Thought Report 2021
Used in:
Irreligion
Reason:
2024 version is in en:Humanists International and en:Freedom of Thought Report. I think that the 2021 graphics manages to represent both freedom and thought/conscience. The image layout and color scheme work well for an encyclopedia page. -- Thi (talk)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-01 07:19 (UTC)
Scope:
St. John the Baptist Church (Ljuboten), exterior view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is notable for its outstanding architectural style. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)

 Comment The image appears rotated by 90° CW. Please fix this, for example with Template:Rotate. --Aciarium ⚒ (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

    •  Best in Scope and used. -- JackyM59 (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-01 07:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Goračino, aerial view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-01 07:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Koševo, Štip, aerial view from south-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-01 07:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Théâtre des Sources in Saint-Amand-les-Eaux , exterior seen from the west – Nord - France
  •  Support Best in scope, useful and used.--Pierre André (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment 'Sacré bleu', comme on disait dans les bandes dessinées de guerre anglaises des années 1960. Tout prez du Château d'Azzilement, une propriété familiale. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Le centre ville a été rénové, il est superbe.-- JackyM59 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-01 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio polytes pasikrates (Common mormon) male (dorsal) on Lantana camara

 Oppose This is a good image but inclusion in the scope of the scientific name of a plant species along with the scientific name of this (VI nom) insect species leads to confusion as to which species is being nominated and yields a scope that is too narrow. Consider an appropriate wider scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-01 14:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio polytes pasikrates (Common mormon) male underside
  •  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Inclusion in the scope of the scientific name of a plant species along with the scientific name of this (VI nom) insect species leads to confusion as to which species is being nominated and yields a scope that is too narrow. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment You can't win here. You've got Archaeodontosaurus promoting VIs with insects on different plants and GRDN711 saying the exact opposite. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment We aim to explain a fundamental relationship between entomology and botany. "Insects don't frequent just any plants." It's fortunate that we can demonstrate this.

Wikipedia was created for this purpose. Not understanding this isn't a problem, but voting against a scientific reality is unacceptable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-01 14:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio polytes pasikrates (Common mormon) female form stichius on citrus blossom
  •  Best in Scope and used. All three photos are magnificent -- JackyM59 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really good image but scope needs a fix. Inclusion of a scientific name for a plant species along with the scientific name of this (VI nom) insect species leads to confusion as to which species is being nominated and yields a scope that is too narrow.
Anyone who has a similar image of this butterfly species would have to have a citrus blossom in the image as well. That's not a generic scope.--GRDN711 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand the scientific value of a scope; however, in that case, it would be best to refrain from voting. The scope is flawlessly executed and therefore leaves no room for doubt.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Best in Scope and used.--Pierre André (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-01 16:40 (UTC)
Scope:
The former abbey church of Saint-Amand-les-Eaux , exterior seen from the gardens, from the east - Nord - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
FlocciNivis (talk) on 2026-04-01 20:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Erica leucotrachela White-tip heath
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-04-02 04:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Almost empty seed pods of a Helenium autumnale (fruit) (Common sneezeweed)

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-02 05:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Viburnum opulus immature inflorescences

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-02 05:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Tridacna crocea (Boring Clam), left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-02 07:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Sts. Peter and Paul Church (Pribačevo), exterior view from north
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is famous for its rich architectural style. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Best in Scope and used. The most beautiful overall view. Lovely colors. -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-02 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Pantelej, aerial view from west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Best in Scope .Brighter than the second one. -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-02 07:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Pribačevo, aerial view from west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-02 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Maximilien Robespierre's house in Arras , exterior seen from the southwest - France
Reason:
Built in 1730, Maximilien Robespierre lived here from 1787 to 1789 with his sister Charlotte and his brother Augustin. -- JackyM59 (talk)

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-02 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Parantica aglea maghaba (Glassy tiger) underside
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-02 13:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Arhopala japonica kotoshona (Japanese oakblue) female dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-02 13:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Arhopala japonica kotoshona (Japanese oakblue) underside
  •  Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-03 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Umbonium costatum (Costate button top snail), shell
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-03 05:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Viburnum tinus mature flowers

Insect is too small/blurred to have EV. Normally you put flower in scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-03 07:07 (UTC)
Scope:
House of the Three Luppars - Arras Grand Place , exterior seen from the south - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)

I don't know what is listed but I find this (tilted) image more valuable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-03 08:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio epycides melanoleucus (Lesser mime) dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-03 08:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Pseudozizeeria maha okinawana (Pale grass blue) underside
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-03 08:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Telicota colon bayashikeii (Pale palm dart) dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-03 10:04 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Demetrius Church (Tatar Elevci), exterior view from south
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Comment At 100%, the photo is very pixelated. . -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  •  Best in Scope and used.Now we can read the characters in the closed window. It was strange what the perspective correction software had produced. -- JackyM59 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-03 10:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Elevci, aerial view from west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this village. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Best in Scope and used. -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-03 10:08 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Athanasius Church (Rajčica), exterior view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-04-03 10:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Courtyard of the abbey farm Pouillerie, Houplin-Ancoisne (Nord)
Reason:
Listed monument, former dependency of the Cistercian abbey of Loos-lez-Lille founded in the 13th century, -- Pierre André (talk)
  •  Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-03 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
The aldermen of Saint-Amand-les-Eaux , exterior seen from the northwest - Nord - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-04-03 23:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Caiman yacare (Yacare caiman), juvenile, dorsal view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-04-03 23:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Caiman yacare (Yacare caiman), juvenile, head
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Giles Laurent (talk) on 2026-04-03 23:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Caiman yacare (Yacare caiman), swimming, head, frontal view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-04 04:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Argopecten irradians (Atlantic Bay Scallop), orange form, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) on 2026-04-03 23:42 (UTC)
Scope:
...
Reason:
English: Portrait photo of Burkina Faso's President Ibrahim Traoré in 2026
Français : Photo portrait du président burkinabé Ibrahim Traoré en 2026
-- Aboubacarkhoraa (talk)

 Oppose No scope. The process of nomination is not correct, please read the guidelines before submission.--Jebulon (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) on 2026-04-03 23:23 (UTC)
Scope:
...
Reason:
Français : Photo portrait du président ghanéen Kwame Nkrumah extrait des Archives nationales du Royaume-Uni
English: Portrait photograph of Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah from the National Archives of the United Kingdom
-- Aboubacarkhoraa (talk)

No scope. The process of nomination is not correct, please read the guidelines before submission.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) on 2026-04-03 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
...
Reason:
English: First President of Guinea, this photo is the most widely used on Wikipedia and shows him waving his white handkerchief, an unofficial but significant symbol of the era.
Français : Premier président de la Guinée, cette photo est la plus utilisée sur Wikipedia et le montre agitant son mouchoir blanc, symbole non officiel mais marquant de l’époque.
-- Aboubacarkhoraa (talk)

 Oppose No scope. The process of nomination is not correct, please read the guidelines before submission. No depiction, no name : Who's that man ? --Jebulon (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)!-- Itemized list of review comments. -->

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-04 07:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Building, 27 Grand'Place in Arras , exterior seen from the southeast - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-04 07:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Façade of the Palace of the Estates of Artois in Arras , exterior seen from the northeast - France
Reason:
The building is listed as a historic monument in France. -- JackyM59 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-04 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George's Church (Bistrica, Bitola), exterior view from north-west
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this church, which is the seat of the Bistrica Parish. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Best in Scope and used. The only view of the whole thing. Nice composition. -- JackyM59 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-04 08:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Brusnik, aerial view from north-east
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kiril Simeonovski (talk) on 2026-04-04 08:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Ascension of Christ (Graešnica), exterior view from south-east
Reason:
I think this is the most representative picture of this 19th-century church. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk)
  •  Best in Scope and used. The only view of the whole thing. Nice composition. -- JackyM59 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-04-04 09:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Blockhaus in the abbey farm of Pouillerie, view from Rue de la Pouillerie (Houplin-Ancoisne)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Paramanu Sarkar (talk) on 2026-04-04 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Pterocles exustus (Chestnut-bellied Sandgrouse) - female
Reason:

Would be useful to put all females in new category. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2026 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: I searched with Pterocles exustus female and put them in a new category. - Paramanu Sarkar (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.
review=

Previous reviews }}

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-04 12:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Neptis sappho formosana (Pallas' sailer) dorsal
  •  Best in Scope. The highest definition. -- JackyM59 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-04 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Heliophorus ila matsumurae (Restricted purple sapphire) female dorsal
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-04-04 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio paris nakaharai (Paris peacock swallowtail) dorsal
  •  Support Best in Scope for sure. JayCubby (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-04-04 14:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Antoine d'Orléans (1824–1890) by Nadar
Reason:
A very diffucult restoration. Best in scope IMO, see File:Duc de Montpensier - btv1b531377639.jpg for comparison. -- Jebulon (talk)
  •  Support Well done. -- Thi (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Espandero (talk) on 2026-04-04 20:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Summit of Le Grammont
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-05 05:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Argopecten irradians (Atlantic Bay Scallop), orange form, left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-05 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Oreomecon nudicaulis - Stamen

Not just the stamen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Paramanu Sarkar (talk) on 2026-04-05 08:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Pterocles indicus (Painted Sandgrouse) - female.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-04-05 16:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Bell tower of the Church of Saint-Martin in Sailly-Labourse , exterior seen from the southwest - France
Reason:
16th century church between Lens and Béthune (which escaped the destruction of 1918) -- JackyM59 (talk)

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
– Ubediplomacy (talk｜contribs) on 2026-04-06 01:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Facade of the Baclaran Church in Parañaque City, Philippines
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-04-06 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Diodora crucifera, shell
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-04-06 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Melaleuca citrina - immature inflorescence
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-06 07:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Landian E5 - left front view
Used in:
en:Fengon 580
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-06 07:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz EQT - left front view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-EQ, de:Mercedes-Benz W 420
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2026-04-06 07:06 (UTC)
Scope:
BYD Atto 2 DM-i - left rear view
Used in:
de:BYD Atto 2, en:BYD Atto 2
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