Commons:Valued image candidates

Skip to image nominations

Skip to most valued reviews

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.

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 type	You get	When
`*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~`	Comment My comment. -- Example	You have a comment.
`*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~`	Info My information. -- Example	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. -- ~~~~`	Question My question. -- Example	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.

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

63,389 closed valued image candidates
Closed as		Nominations
Promoted	57,164 (90.2%)
Undecided	3,590 (5.7%)
Declined	2,635 (4.2%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Quintin Soloviev (talk) on 2026-05-30 01:34 (UTC)
Scope: Sun Bowl Stadium
Used in: Sun Bowl (stadium)
Reason: Best overall image in the stadium's category. This aerial view shows the full stadium bowl clearly, along with its mountainous setting near the University of Texas at El Paso and surrounding landscape. --Quintin Soloviev (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2026 (UTC) -- Quintin Soloviev (talk)[reply]
File:UTEP Sun Bowl Stadium Aerial View Sept 6 2009 (cropped).jpg is a good (better ?) challenger IMO. Thoughts ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 14:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Brihaspati (talk) on 2026-05-30 13:03 (UTC)
Scope: Sculpture of Koitalel Arap Samoei
Reason: The only sculpture of Koitalel Arap Samoei, a Nandi leader of resistance against the British occupation -- Brihaspati (talk)
Oppose Sorry, scope not linked to a category --Ezarateesteban 12:01, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Question@Ezarate: Isn't Category:Sculpture of Koitalel Arap Samoei is linked with the scope? If not, what should be the proposed category? --Brihaspati (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Fixing for you, now the geocode is missing, is mandatory for VI --Ezarateesteban 17:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 14:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Astro.furball (talk) on 2026-05-31 06:01 (UTC)
Scope: Schönbrunn metro station (exterior)
Reason: Higher resolution and better color/contrast than the existing 2012 VI. An additional plus is that the graffiti in the 2012 image is no longer present. -- Astro.furball (talk)
Oppose see argument in another nomination --Ezarateesteban 12:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose --Petro Stelte (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Astro.furball (talk) on 2026-05-31 06:02 (UTC)
Scope: Schönbrunn metro station, Vienna (exterior)
Reason: Nomination to review the existing VI status. Previous supporting review was based on it being best in scope. That's IMO no longer the case. -- Astro.furball (talk)
Previous reviews Support keep this, QI the another isn't QI and too much disturbing elements more perspective issue IMHO --Ezarateesteban 12:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Support I agree with Ezarate. --Petro Stelte (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2026-05-31 10:40 (UTC)
Scope: VP-BDE (Airbus A330), view at Irkoutsk- Airport
Reason: Obviously this is the onely image we have of this aircraft. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
I don't think we need VI scopes of a particular aircraft type in every airline livery and at every airport. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment Removing the aircraft type's field of vision. Is that better? --Pierre André ^(talk) 09:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sorry, don't understand. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Done Removal of airline liveries from the airport. Regards. --Pierre André ^(talk) 21:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Charlesjsharp, scope too narrow Phillipedison1891 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 14:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Quintin Soloviev (talk) on 2026-06-01 06:01 (UTC)
Scope: Oxford, Nova Scotia
Used in: Oxford, Nova Scotia
Reason: Best overall image in the linked category. This aerial view shows the town center and landscape clearly, rather than only one sign or statue. --Quintin Soloviev (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC) -- Quintin Soloviev (talk)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-06-01 10:26 (UTC)
Scope: Lepus europaeus ( European hare)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

}}

View promotion
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-06-01 10:27 (UTC)
Scope: Rattus norvegicus (Brown rat)
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-06-01 10:37 (UTC)
Scope: Portrait of Luis María de Cistué y Martínez by Francisco de Goya - Louvre Museum
Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-06-02 05:36 (UTC)
Scope: Siphonaria plana, shell
Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-06-02 06:53 (UTC)
Scope: The Alhambra Vase (MAO 429) - Louvre Museum
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2026-06-02 10:21 (UTC)
Scope: Embraer 170 of Hop!, flying over Lille Lesquin International Airport
Support Useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose scope is far too narrow (specific plane model, specific airline, specific airport) Phillipedison1891 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-06-02 16:01 (UTC)
Scope: Martes martes (European pine marten)
Comment One of the best resolutions along with your other 2 photos with a tighter framing but the colors of the animal are much lighter than in the reference photo "Pine Marten (48173751702).jpg". -- JackyM59 (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-06-02 16:03 (UTC)
Scope: Mustela putorius putorius (European polecat)
Comment I have the impression that its front legs are translucent? -- JackyM59 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-06-02 16:16 (UTC)
Scope: Martes foina foina (Stone marten)
Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-06-03 04:30 (UTC)
Scope: Stelpboerderij Beslingadijk 15 Friens Front and right side.
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-06-03 05:19 (UTC)
Scope: Barcania kaltenbachi kaltenbachi, shell
Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-03 05:18 (UTC)
Scope: Iris pseudocorus ( yellow flag) - immature flower
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-03 05:54 (UTC)
Scope: Bridge over the Seine in Winter by Albert Marquet, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
Best in Scope ans used. The only one. --JackyM59 (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-06-03 06:36 (UTC)
Scope: Two little angels and two cherub heads attributed to Christophe Veyrier - Louvre Museum
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-06-04 05:28 (UTC)
Scope: Cardita variegata (Variegate Cardita), right valve
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-04 05:17 (UTC)
Scope: Hippeastrum sonatini 'White Rascal – flower
Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-04 05:27 (UTC)
Scope: Backlit, Maria in Biarritz 1906 - Museu Sorolla
Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-06-04 07:18 (UTC)
Scope: Saint-Saulve Fortier Castle - France, exterior seen from southwest
Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-06-04 16:48 (UTC)
Scope: Inflorescence of a Rhododendron ponticum
Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Ktkvtsh (talk) on 2026-06-04 17:26 (UTC)
Scope: Notable location, Milliken's Bend, Louisiana.
Reason: Levee near site of US civil war battle. -- Ktkvtsh (talk)
Previous reviews
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-05 05:24 (UTC)
Scope: Hoodia gordonii (Bushman's hat) young shoots
Reason: Young shoots don't have hats... -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-05 05:34 (UTC)
Scope: Bateaux au port (Boats in a Port) by Henri Matisse, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-06-05 05:36 (UTC)
Scope: Scutellastra exusta, shell
Best in Scope ans used -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-06-05 06:21 (UTC)
Scope: The Duke of Chaulnes, depicted as Hercules by Michel Ferdinand d'Albert d'Ailly - Louvre Museum
Reason: The only photograph of this work -- JackyM59 (talk)
Best in Scope--Jebulon (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2026-06-05 11:58 (UTC)
Scope: Statue to Saint Agustinus in Our Lady of Fátima church, Mar del Plata, Argentina
Isn’t this one better ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Comment This one is clearer, but if it's overprocessed this one This is QI, the another not --Ezarateesteban 12:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Jebulon (talk) on 2026-06-05 20:27 (UTC)
Scope: Francisco Serrano by Nadar, interpretation
Reason: This man was a spanish marshall, a Grandee of Spain, and the regent of the kingdom of Spain during 1869/1871. Best in scope IMO. This restoration/interpretation was a bit helped by AI and mainly by Gimp. Another good cadidate ! -- Jebulon (talk)
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Phillipedison1891 (talk) on 2026-06-05 20:45 (UTC)
Scope: Stage hypnosis
Reason: Main competitor is Andre On Stage.jpg but I think the lighting and composition is inferior, plus it was uploaded as self-promotion -- Phillipedison1891 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2026-06-06 04:54 (UTC)
Scope: Barcania kaltenbachi barceensis, shell
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-06 06:06 (UTC)
Scope: Mammillaria hahniana (old lady cactus) "growth habit"
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-06-06 06:15 (UTC)
Scope: 'Clock' by Jean-Jacques de Bellefontaine, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
Best in Scope and very beautiful and valuable object. --Jebulon (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

</noinclude>

Closed valued image candidates

Pending Most valued review candidates

Schönbrunn metro station (exterior)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Astro.furball (talk) on 2026-05-31 06:01 (UTC)
Scope: Schönbrunn metro station (exterior)
Reason: Higher resolution and better color/contrast than the existing 2012 VI. An additional plus is that the graffiti in the 2012 image is no longer present. -- Astro.furball (talk)
Oppose see argument in another nomination --Ezarateesteban 12:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Oppose --Petro Stelte (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Astro.furball (talk) on 2026-05-31 06:02 (UTC)
Scope: Schönbrunn metro station, Vienna (exterior)
Reason: Nomination to review the existing VI status. Previous supporting review was based on it being best in scope. That's IMO no longer the case. -- Astro.furball (talk)
Previous reviews Support keep this, QI the another isn't QI and too much disturbing elements more perspective issue IMHO --Ezarateesteban 12:05, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply] Support I agree with Ezarate. --Petro Stelte (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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

This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.