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

61,093 closed valued image candidates
Closed as		Nominations
Promoted	55,118 (90.2%)
Undecided	3,397 (5.6%)
Declined	2,578 (4.2%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: TheNuggeteer (talk) on 2025-11-18 12:14 (UTC)
Scope: Philippines AirAsia Puregold Livery
Reason: Best image of the AirAsia Puregold Livery (only other image is File:RP-C8978 (36296170080).jpg, this is better) -- TheNuggeteer (talk)
Comment the second one has different perspective but looks way more better--Gower (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] My image shows the livery design more clearly as well as the airplane landing in an international airport. I think their sharpness and quality are on par, but I think this one is better encyclopedically. TheNuggeteer (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] I prefer the flying one too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: TheNuggeteer (talk) on 2025-11-18 11:35 (UTC)
Scope: DoubleDragon Plaza Giant Statues
Reason: Only image about the scope in Commons; the scope is discussed in numerous news articles. -- TheNuggeteer (talk)
Question Is this statue copyrighted?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment sculpture looks quite new, and question is probably linked with that template: Template:NoFoP-Philippines --Gower (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-18 19:33 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Morskie Oko
Reason: Morskie Oko is a major tourist attraction in Poland and the second-largest lake in the Tatra Mountains, the highest Polish mountains. That image (author: Tomasz O.) isn't perfect (small resolution), but as only one on Commons shows real shape of that lake, because photo was taken from mountain pass over the lake (and sadly it's probably only photo from that pass, also big tourist attraction). Another good picture is that one, but from different perspective: File:Panorama-Morskiego-Oka.jpg. -- Gower (talk)
Oppose There are several better images of the lake including this one and this one. --Tagooty (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-19 11:54 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Rysy
Reason: Rysy is the highest peak of Poland, its name comes from the deep diagonal furrow clearly visible in the photo. The photo is low-resolution (author: Andrzej Makarczuk), but it is still valuable and, in my opinion, best represents this mountain on Commons. -- Gower (talk)
Question Hi Gower what do you think of this one? I think it is better. The photo you are suggesting was taken by Andrzej Makarczuk, and they don't seem to be active on Commons. Regards --Pierre André ^(talk) 17:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: thank you very much for your proposal. Your suggested photo isn't bad, but imho it's too bright, not very sharp, and doesn't show the furrow. Maybe I should change the scope to: Rysy, the top of the mountain? --Gower (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your reply. Best regards--Pierre André ^(talk) 22:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: JackyM59 (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:04 (UTC)
Scope: Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise by Camille Pissarro - Musée d’Orsay - Paris
Used in: wikidata fr:Liste_de_peintures_de_Camille_Pissarro, en:List_of_paintings_by_Camille_Pissarro, de:Werkverzeichnis_von_Camille_Pissarro/Blütezeit
Comment @JackyM59: scope (it was: Paintings and pictorial arts) is extremely wide and covers hundreds of thousands works of art. What makes this image the best choice for the scope? Pissarro is of course fine painter, but I'm not convinced. --Gower (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment scope and uses are updated . -- JackyM59 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment how about that one in the new scope?: File:Julie Pissarro écossant des pois, Camille Pissarro - 3160.jpg, the frame isn't clipped here. --Gower (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sorry, I didn't photograph the entire frame. I also included a version without the frame. Next time I'll take a picture of the entire frame. --JackyM59 (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] ~~Oppose~~The subject is the painting. The scope must give the title (standard title given by the museum) followed by the name of the author, then that of the museum. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] CommentI have corrected the scope category.--JackyM59 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Scope changed from 1877 paintings by Camille Pissarro to Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise by Camille Pissarro - Musée d’Orsay - Paris --JackyM59 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Oppose after scope clarification I prefer your other frameless version: File:Coin de jardin à l'Hermitage. Pontoise - Sans cadre.jpg, which can be nominated later --Gower (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @JackyM59: impressive that your both versions have better colors than official photo! link --Gower (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] CommentI took the photo during a temporary exhibition at the Tourcoing Museum. I don't remember the light. I understand the criticism and the demands. I am slowly discovering how you work. I will suggest the frameless version later. https://muba-tourcoing.fr/EXPOSITIONS/Passees/Peindre-la-nature.-Paysages-impressionnistes-du-musee-d-Orsay --JackyM59 (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Ok for me. But it is best, for all paintings, to avoid the frame. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:00 (UTC)
Scope: Ostearius melanopygius cocoon
Reason: The only photo of cocoons of this species on Commons. The photo is not perfect (its location did not allow taking a photo from a different perspective), but it probably shows well the shape and structure of these cocoons and their arrangement in relation to each other. -- Gower (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 08:20 (UTC)
Scope: Macrosaccus robiniella, lateral view of imago
Reason: One of two photos on Commons (the second one is worse, also by me: link) showing the imago of this taxon in lateral view. The quality and detail are not high, but I think that the key details and specificity of the pattern are visible. -- Gower (talk)
Too dark as it is. And to make it more valuable, Turkish Wikipedia has about 1.5m visitors to its home page every month, but English Wikipedia 175m! Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Charlesjsharp: thanks a lot for your remarks. I didn't notice that darkness. Brighter and higher resolution version uploaded & image added to enWiki. How it looks now? --Gower (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Better though still quite dark. And when you look closely, it is not in focus, so I wouldn't nominate it myself. And for this sort of shot on a window glass, I would actually rotate 90 deg. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Charlesjsharp: thanks for your review, sharpness and quality is indeed mediocre, that insect is very small and I don't have premium lens. It was indeed shot on a window glass, but position was as it is, vertical, so I didn't change it. But so far we don't have nothing better unfortunately. --Gower (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] For me the quality is too low as it can't really be used for identification or anything else. I'm not sure you can blame the camera or lens if the autofocus is working properly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-20 18:55 (UTC)
Scope: CINiBA (The Scientific Information Centre and Academic Library), exterior, view from the northeast
Reason: Modern academic library building, its design that was awarded and gained attention. My photo imho shows characteristic shape of that building. -- Gower (talk)
Comment The scope would be much more specific if we gave the orientation of the photo: view from the north, from the south, etc... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Scope changed from CINiBA (The Scientific Information Centre and Academic Library), exterior to CINiBA (The Scientific Information Centre and Academic Library), exterior, view from the northeast --Gower (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". @Archaeodontosaurus: thanks for the comment and suggestion, the scope has been changed. I didn't specify the direction so that the scope would be general, but if it's better that way, that's fine for me and I invite you to review :) --Gower (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-21 06:26 (UTC)
Scope: *Male head 1st century AD. - Musée des Amériques* - Auch**
Support exceptional illustrative value (@Archaeodontosaurus: btw, I hope that my statements will no longer be perceived as creating a negative atmosphere and I never had such an intention.) --Gower (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment It's a pleasure when the remarks are constructive. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-21 06:28 (UTC)
Scope: Notre-Dame-de-Lorette - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-21 06:31 (UTC)
Scope: Stone club head - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support very good image, useful and interesting thing --Gower (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-21 06:39 (UTC)
Scope: Moerella pulchella, right valve
Best in Scope as always :) --Gower (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 08:37 (UTC)
Scope: Manica rubida imago, male, lateral view
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Gower (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 08:47 (UTC)
Scope: Pomnik Żołnierza Polskiego (Monument of the Polish Soldier) in Katowice, side view
Reason: Important large monument in Katowice, the side view highlights the eagle silhouette idea. -- Gower (talk)
Support Best in scope (It's a shame the image wasn't used.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Gower (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-21 10:28 (UTC)
Scope: Tabernaemontana divaricata (Pinwheel flower) - fresh and withered flowers
Question @Brihaspati: Why does the scope include Gujarat? Do the flowers there have any different characteristics than elsewhere? If not, perhaps we should remove it from the scope and keep just the taxon and the flower? --Gower (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: updated the scope.--Brihaspati (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Note that the scope must be linked to a category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: added category. --Brihaspati (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus and Brihaspati: I have edited the scope for clarity. Hope this is ok? As there are a large number of images of flowers in the linked CAT, it will be useful to create a sub-cat for "fresh and withered flowers" --Tagooty (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-21 10:38 (UTC)
Scope: "Bauhinia Acuminata" (Dwarf White Bauhinia) Flowers in Gujarat, India
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-21 11:16 (UTC)
Scope: Immeuble Morel & Fils, 31 place Théâtre (Lille), view from Pl. du Théâtre
Reason: This building located at 31 Place du Théâtre (Lille), is part of the "Rang de Beauregard". The name of its sign, "Le Moulin d'Or", commemorates the victory at Valmy in 1792 against the Prussian troops. It is an interesting relic from the siege of Lille. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Brihaspati (talk) on 2025-11-21 10:57 (UTC)
Scope: 2.5 Ah cells of Sodium-Ion
Comment: Note that the scope must be linked to a category --Archaeodontosaurus ( talk) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: Done—Brihaspati (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Unfortunately not: the scope is still not correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 12:21 (UTC)
Scope: Barania Góra, view from the south
Reason: The second-highest peak in the Silesian Beskids in Poland, a popular tourist destination with an observation tower. The photo shows the broad massif of the mountain from a distance. -- Gower (talk)
Comment The scope would be much more specific if we gave the orientation of the photo: view from the north, from the south, etc...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Scope changed from Barania Góra to Barania Góra, view from the south --Gower (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: thank you for your suggestion, the scope has been clarified; I somehow thought that such a broader scope was also good, but thanks to precision we can have several VIs, which is nice. I kindly invite you to review :) --Gower (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 12:56 (UTC)
Scope: Myrmeleon formicarius imago, head
Reason: The frontal head view shows the insect’s face with anatomical details such as the mandibles. Only two photos are within the scope. The second one: File:Myrmeleon formicarius (9566805090).jpg is nice but imho less sharp and position on mandibles is different. -- Gower (talk)
Comment It would be good if the image were used at least once on Wikipedia... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Thank you for the suggestion, I hadn't thought of that. Now it is in use in several Wikipedias, I kindly invite you to review. --Gower (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-21
Scope: Cyme euprepioides - dorsal
Support very good and only one. @Atudu: genus name is perhaps changed to Asura--Gower (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Gower (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-21
Scope: Pachynoa hypsalis - dorsal
Oppose unnatural light (UV?) caused weird colors, I prefer that one: File:Pachynoa hypsalis 501280588.jpg --Gower (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-21
Scope: Xerodes ypsaria - dorsal
Oppose sorry, but per criterion 3 ('reasonable sharpness' is not provided here, wings are out of focus totally), that one from iNaturalist is imho much better and sharp: File:Xerodes ypsaria 568420036.jpg. --Gower (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-21
Scope: Uncobotyodes patulalis - dorsal
Support good quality and only one within the scope --Gower (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-21
Scope: Syllepte nigriflava - dorsal
average quality and unsharp but ~~useful anyway and only one photo of this species~~ --Gower (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I uploaded better photo from iNaturalist: File:Syllepte nigriflava 413455333.jpg, so that one is not best in scope now. --Gower (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-21
Scope: Ophthalmitis xanthypochlora - dorsal
Support good and only one photo of this species --Gower (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Mile (talk) on 2025-11-21 17:41 (UTC)
Scope: Bab Bou Jeloud, daylight
Used in: Morocco
Reason: good view, colors, size -- Mile (talk)
Comment The scope is too broad. "Daylight" is irrelevant, but the city name is essential.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: August (talk) on 2025-11-21 18:09 (UTC)
Scope: Marian column (Osek Monastery)
Reason: most detailed image in scope -- August (talk)
Best in Scope, good quality, I added it to the Wikidata item (P18) --Gower (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 19:15 (UTC)
Scope: Buiding of IV Lyceum in Bytom, exterior, view from the west
Reason: One of the most famous monuments of Bytom and one of its symbols, an example of Upper Silesian Art Nouveau. From this side, the façade is visible. Tram lines are imho unavoidable because the building is located next to the tram stop. -- Gower (talk)
Comment If you add the direction of the exposure (south, north, etc.), the scope is more precise and you can see the back face of the building, which is very different and interesting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Scope changed from Buiding of IV Lyceum in Bytom, exterior to Buiding of IV Lyceum in Bytom, exterior, view from the west --Gower (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: thank you for your suggestion, the scope has been clarified; the back of the building is indeed very interesting, but closed to people outside the school but I got permission and went in there :) I kindly invite you to review --Gower (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-21 19:19 (UTC)
Scope: Main post office in Bytom, exterior, view from the west
Reason: Cultural heritage monument in Poland, fine example of the Northern Neo-Renaissance in Poland, designed by Ewald von Rechenberg. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: E bailey (talk) on 2025-11-22 01:49 (UTC)
Scope: Phoebastria irrorata in flight, dorsal
Used in: en:Waved albatross
Best in Scope very sharp one --Gower (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-22
Scope: Callambulyx poecilus (Lesser Pink-and-Green Hawkmoth)-alive,dorsal
Support good quality and only one within the scope, useful (I love Sphingidae family btw, so thanks a lot) --Gower (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-22
Scope: Barsine roseata-dorsal
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-22 06:17 (UTC)
Scope: Moerella pulchella, left valve
Support very good and useful --Gower (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:16 (UTC)
Scope: *Hoplobatrachus litoralis*
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Kingshuk Mondal (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:21 (UTC)
Scope: Typical Tidal forest of Sundarbans Tiger Reserve, West Bengal, India.
Comment @Herpking: maybe image with tiger would be more suitable? Like this one: File:Sundarban Tiger.jpg --Gower (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Info @Gower: That image portrays a Tiger more than the forest landscape itself. -- Kingshuk Mondal (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:24 (UTC)
Scope: Owl head pendants Culture mochica - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support very noisy and a bit blurry at full magnification but still useful --Gower (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:28 (UTC)
Scope: Ammonite with Pyrite pseudomorphs - Bully Calvados - France
Support partially out of focus or unsharp but still OK and useful --Gower (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-22 07:40 (UTC)
Scope: Shaman's scepter with a pommel decorated with a head surmounted by an ear of corn - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: I suggest adding category or categories related to scepters--Gower (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done I added the category 'scepter', although in this specific case the term 'command staff' would be more appropriate. But we don't argue with official titles...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: I think that "sceptres in art" category it inappropriate here, because it is sceptre itself, not artistic depiction of it. --Gower (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Category related to its function still needed --Gower (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment The Shaman category has been added. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support OK now, good photo of interesting artifact. --Gower (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-22 09:39 (UTC)
Scope: Rang des Arbalétriers.- House nr 2 Place Bleuets (Lille), front view
Reason: Historical Arbalétriers row, dating from 1640, is a remarkable example of two-tone brick and stone construction. The basket-handle arches, alternating brick and stone, are adorned with diamond-point decoration. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Comment @Pierre André Leclercq: coordinates point n° 8 Place Bleuets, not n° 2, could you fix it? --Gower (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done correction of coordinates point n° 2 Place Bleuets. thanks for you advice.- --Pierre André ^(talk) 16:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 11:53 (UTC)
Scope: Torfowe Kłyle ecological area
Reason: Protected area in Poland, rare halophilic plants typical of brackish waters and seaside rush rushes occur here. Photo shows both the seashore and the thickets. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 12:41 (UTC)
Scope: August Kiss bust by Gustav Blaeser, Artistic Casting Department of Museum in Gliwice
too dark Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 12:48 (UTC)
Scope: 10000 W light bulb
Reason: Exhibited in the museum in Łaziska. The only photo of a bulb with this power that I found on Commons. -- Gower (talk)
Comment Too dark, but easy to fix. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gower (talk) on 2025-11-22 12:58 (UTC)
Scope: Irydion by Henryk Kuna, Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom
Reason: Henryk Kuna is one of the best known sculptors from Poland. Sculpture shows actor Henryk Barwiński as Irydion, literary character from Zygmunt Krasiński play. Scope is limited to Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom, because another cast/copy of this sculpture is in Wrocław museum. It is possible that there are even more copies. -- Gower (talk)
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Earth605 (talk) on 2025-11-22 17:15 (UTC)
Scope: Copy of the Bronocice pot
Comment I recommend linking 'Bronocice pot' category to the scope and add information, that photo shows copy of Bronocice Pot. --Gower (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-22 17:44 (UTC)
Scope: 18th-century flintlock muskets, view in Palais des Beaux-Arts de Lille
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:30 (UTC)
Scope: Clausilia rugosa ssp. parvula, shell
Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Best in Scope, @Llez: sharpness is lacking this time (why?); I added it to the Wikidata item, which I encourage you to do in the future --Gower (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:48 (UTC)
Scope: *'15th century snail base' - Musée des Amériques* - Auch**
@Archaeodontosaurus: I suggest adding categories for bases and age of creation. The existing categories are too general and it will be difficult to find them --Gower (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: category for bases not added… Something from that could be very useful: Category:Bases (architecture) --Gower (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is now referenced in Wikidata --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:52 (UTC)
Scope: Peasant woman with a distaff - 'Musée des Amériques' - Auch
Question do we know anything about who M. Puget was? If so, you could create a category and a Wikidata item for it --Gower (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Unfortunately, there is no trace of this painter apart from his signature on the painting, along with the date. No database lists it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-23 06:56 (UTC)
Scope: Stirrup-handled vase - the god Ai Apaec - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support --Gower (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] a different PoV would show the stirrup? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Good idea, but it's impossible for this part; it's fixed to a rod behind it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-23 11:08 (UTC)
Scope: Powder horn made of cow horn, 18th century AD, Palais des Beaux Arts - (Lille)
Used in: Global usage
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Hobbyfotowiki (talk) on 2025-11-23 11:57 (UTC)
Scope: Oenanthe cypriaca (Cyprus wheatear) male
Comment: Note that the scope must be linked to a category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment Scope is linked now. -- Hobbyfotowiki (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-23 18:00 (UTC)
Scope: *Gateway to the Opéra de Lille, view from Pl. du Théâtre*
Support Useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2025-11-23 18:21 (UTC)
Scope: Detail of a Rapids at stream Ual da Foppas along the trail Andiast-Breil-Brigels.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-23 22:07 (UTC)
Scope: Athene cunicularia cunicularia (Southern burrowing owl)
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Tyana chloroleuca-dorsal
still useful because we don't have anything better but Oppose per criterion 3 – completely unsharp wings, sorry --Gower (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Pogonopygia pavida-dorsal
Support good one --Gower (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Neohipparchus maculata-dorsal, male
Support very good --Gower (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 2025-11-24
Scope: Taractrocera danna-ventral
needs a crop please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oppose reasonable sharpness of wings not provided (per criterion 3); that one is also low/average quality, but slightly better in showing wings: File:Taractrocera danna 202918480.jpg --Gower (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-24 06:21 (UTC)
Scope: Praeexogyra hebridica var. elongata, fossil shell
Support useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-24 07:13 (UTC)
Scope: *Female head 1st century AD. - Musée des Amériques* - Auch**
Comment adding category for female head sculptures could be useful --Gower (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: sadly not done, no categories for female head sculptures added --Gower (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-24 07:15 (UTC)
Scope: Descente de Croix - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful & Used. --Pierre André ^(talk) 08:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-24 07:16 (UTC)
Scope: Libation vessel - erect individual - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support Useful & Used.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-24 09:38 (UTC)
Scope: Bell-ringer of restaurant La Cloche (1793), view from Place du Théâtre (Lille)
Reason: This is the only photograph of the bell ringer's sign on the façade of the restaurant "La Cloche" (1793), listed as a Beauregard Architectural Heritage site (Mérimée). -- Pierre André ^(talk)
not the only one , but one of at least four photographs, but Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Comment btw very small resolution and sadly, not in use --Gower (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:04 (UTC)
Scope: Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeon) male
Best in Scope excellent --Gower (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:05 (UTC)
Scope: Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeon) in flight, showing underside
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-24 11:07 (UTC)
Scope: Mareca sibilatrix (Chiloe wigeons) pair in flight, showing wing upperside
Support very good, probably only one photo within the scoper --Gower (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2025-11-24 11:39 (UTC)
Scope: *Shop sign the Bras d'Or, view from Rue Grande Chaussée (Lille)*
Used in: Global usage
Reason: This is the only photograph of the shop sign the Bras d'Or on the façade Rue grande chaussée, listed architectural Heritage in base Mérimée PA00107640. -- Pierre André ^(talk)
Question @Pierre André Leclercq: could you fix strong color noise? It should be easy --Gower (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: Done correction of significant color noise. Best regards. --Pierre André ^(talk) 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Pierre André Leclercq: thanks, but it's still high color noise visible and image is less sharp now… --Gower (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Gower: Done Color noise correction and sharpening of picture.--Pierre André ^(talk) 22:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply] Support now better, acceptable --Gower (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2025-11-24 17:31 (UTC)
Scope: Nikon D3100
Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: E bailey (talk) on 2025-11-24 23:58 (UTC)
Scope: Shure SM57 microphone
Used in: en:Microphone, en:Shure SM57, en:Shure
Reason: I oriented the microphone in this photo to get a close view of the Shure SM57’s signature grille, showing the metal mesh capsule screen and the distinctive ribbed black outer ring that make this microphone recognizable. -- E bailey (talk)
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:15 (UTC)
Scope: Avenue Al Eucalypthus, Agdal-Riyad, Rabat, Morocco
Used in: wikidata:Q136759826
Reason: Shows the road, the eucalyptus trees and buildings. -- Tagooty (talk)
anything notable about this road? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:29 (UTC)
Scope: Periglypta reticulata, right valve
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:47 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Nins - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2025-11-25 06:50 (UTC)
Scope: Owl-shaped stirrup-handled vase - Musée des Amériques - Auch
Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-25 09:21 (UTC)
Scope: Phimosus infuscatus (Bare-faced ibis) flock in flight
Support very good, only one within the scope --Gower (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-25 09:23 (UTC)
Scope: Progne tapera (Brown-chested martin)
Best in Scope, I added it as P18 to Wikidata --Gower (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2025-11-25 09:24 (UTC)
Scope: Turdus falcklandii magellanicus (Austral thrush)
Best in Scope --Gower (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Wobbanight on 2025-11-24 17:58 (UTC)
Scope: 1845 Walnut Street in Philadelphia, PA.
Reason: Only image of this building on the commons. -- Wobbanight
Oppose only in scope but not fully visible, right side is clipped, perspective is unfavorable. @Wobbanight: please add the category for that building to the scope and put new candidates to the end of the list in the future --Gower (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

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

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