Jump to content

Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

How to review an image

[edit]

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

[edit]
  • 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. -- ~~~~ 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

[edit]

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

[edit]
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
63,347 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 57,129 (90.2%) 
Undecided
  
 3,585 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
 2,633 (4.2%) 


New valued image nominations

[edit]
   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2026-05-18 22:12 (UTC)
Scope:
MV Margaret’s Justice - IMO 9840635
Reason:
Best overall view of this RORO ferry by name that shows the ship in action as a local ferry in Digby Neck. -- GRDN711 (talk)
  •  Comment Agree there is more than one good image but I feel this one is best because the ship is moving on the water with a good view of the entire ship, rather than being stationary at the dock with partially blocked views. Also, as a ferry, the car deck is fully visible with this image rather than being blocked by the support wall. Further, while is it a double-ended ferry, this end is more the front end than the other. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If the scope was limited with a sub-scope of port view, Archaeodontosaurus, I would agree with you. However, the scope claim is that this image is the best and most valuable for the entire ferry-by-name. The above image better shows all aspects of this double-ended ferry in motion – both ramps, the car and passenger decks with detail; the best view of the bridge, along with detail of the anchor and ferry name in two places. IMO, this is the better of the two and more valuable image to represent this Grand Passage ferry-by-name. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The two images are important. I think it will be necessary to name the second image with another scope. I will then gladly lift my opposition... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I was originally only planning make one VI nom as best overall image of this ferry-by-name but based on your comments, I have created a second nomination for MV Margaret’s Justice - IMO 9840635 – port side. Thank you for your thoughts on this. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-20 16:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Calidris alpina alpina (Dunlin) non breeding plumage

 Question There is a subcat for "Calidris alpina - winter plumage". Is this the non-breeding plumage? If so, the linked CAT in the scope should be changed. --Tagooty (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-20 16:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Pyrrhula pyrrhula europaea (Eurasian bullfinch) male
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JPD115 (talk) on 2026-05-20 19:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Brivet river, view from the bridge of D4 road, looking north-east, upstream.
Used in:
Brivet

 Best in Scope -- JackyM59 (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The scope needs to distinguish that this is the Brivet River (Upper or Lower?) and not the Town of Brivet. Even then, the scope is too wide if representing the whole river, and not just a portion. Would be open to the thoughts of others on this last point. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hello GRDN711, Thanks I corrected with your comments, add "river" and "upstream" in scope. I thought that the link to the category for the river Brivet was sufficient, and that the direction of the shot would determine whether it was upstream or downstream.--JPD115 21:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-21 05:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Venetian's stern lantern of a 16th century galley
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-21 17:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Frank Vincent (author) free interpretation after an old original.
Used in:
wikidata:Q19356940
Reason:
This is a free interpretation helped by AI of an old carte de visite portrait by Benjamin Falck, photographer from New York. The man is a famous american writer. Best in scope IM -- Jebulon (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-05-22 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Fraxinus excelsior (buds) (European ash)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-22 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Cauliflory Cercis siliquastrum Cauliflory  : flowers and fruits
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2026-05-22 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
La clairière ( The clearing ) by André Derain, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse

 Best in Scope and used -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-22 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Head of the great odalisque recumbent by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres - Arts Museum of Cambrai

 Support best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-22 06:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Woman of Biskra by Marie Tonoir - Quai Branly Museum – Jacques-Chirac, Paris
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-22 09:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Coccothraustes coccothraustes (Hawfinch) male

 Comment With a large number of images, it is difficult to evaluate this nom without a subcat for male --Tagooty (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-22 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Coccothraustes coccothraustes (Hawfinch) female

 Comment With a large number of images, it is difficult to evaluate this nom without a subcat for female --Tagooty (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2026-05-22 09:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Limosa limosa limosa (Black-tailed godwit) in flight, showing wing underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pitke (talk) on 2026-05-22 15:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Olsynium douglasii
Reason:
Geocoded, visually pleasing and clearly conveying image showing entire plant at bloom, in habitat; scope has few geocoded images overall, of which File:Olsynium douglasii 38421.JPG and File:Olsynium douglasii 37696.JPG look like the closest competitors. Not used anywhere due to having been uncategorized until today. -- Pitke (talk)

 Comment Your VI nom has merit for consideration. However, the scope is troubling. In keeping with the COM:VIS suggestions for plants, something more generic in the form of "Olsynium douglasii (Grass Widow) - habitat" with the same scope-link category, might work better here. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this is a main scope nomination for the species. Common name omitted because there are multiple. --Pitke (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-05-22 17:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Cap with curled gills of a Laccaria laccata The deceiver.

 Comment This is a excellent image but not typical of the species in the degree of curling of the cap. This species most often has a relatively flat or gently sloping cap. Suggest a scope that treats the curling as a sub-scope would work better here - " Laccaria laccata (The Deceiver) with extreme curling of the cap".
Also, the scope-link category should not be restricted to the Netherlands but should be the category for the whole species - Category:Laccaria laccata. Your comments are welcome. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I am not in favor of a scope-link to a species page because the images in the page are not all of the images of this species in Commons, just ones chosen for the page.
For this nomination, I went to the overall Category:Laccaria laccata for comparison that shows all images of this mushroom species. There were an additional couple of highly curled examples, particularly one from Germany, that showed merit. This VI nomination, however, both illustrates the scope and is of higher technical quality. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2026-05-22 18:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Pelican II - IMO 9044815 – starboard view
Reason:
Best starboard view of this ship by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2026-05-22 22:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Francisco Bollini

 Comment Very interesting, but the file page in far much uncomplete. For instance, there is a special template you must use when you modify a picture with AI. the {retouched} is not enough, have a look to the file pages of my recent nominations. You should use « extracted from » with a link to the original and « images extracted » with a link to the cleaned picture. The scope is too large too if there is any other picture of this man. Furthermore, I think (matter of taste !) that your guy’s face looks a bit too « wax » and unnatural.--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retouched template used (but I was linked the source file) --Ezarateesteban 13:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you should add the template {AI modified} in the file page, and could not use {retouched} template only, and not for an AI production. some say here that AI generated files are not restorations or retouches, but creation of an entirely new file. I disagree (for part) but I have had problems with a FP nomination I was obliged to withdraw. --Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AI modified template added --Ezarateesteban 12:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  SupportBest in scope of course. But you still did not manage the file pages as it should be. The Template {AI modified} is not at the good place, you should subsequently modify the text of the {retouched} template (no more allusion to Flow). And in the file page you should use the {image extracted} template instead of the {extracted from} you used. ✓ Done for you by me ! Maybe you should just look at one of my recent nominations ? Sorry to bother you ;).--Jebulon (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Seeing your nominations I noticed about the Flow AI --Ezarateesteban 20:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2026-05-23 05:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Strigatella auriculoides, shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-23 07:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Odalisque by Sophie Gabriac - Museum of Fine Arts and Archaeology of Troyes, France
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-05-23 09:17 (UTC)
Scope:
La Croix du Hable d' Onival. (Woignarue), view from Beach parking space (Woignarue)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2026-05-23 16:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Hâble-d'Ault, signpost of the hunting and wildlife reserve, view from Cayeux-sur-Mer

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
E bailey (talk) on 2026-05-23 17:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Calochortus tiburonensis (Tiburon mariposa lily)
Used in:
en:Calochortus tiburonensis
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2026-05-24 08:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Battery Worth, Fort Casey, view from northeast
Used in:
wikidata:Q139906312
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JackyM59 (talk) on 2026-05-24 10:59 (UTC)
Scope:
A street in Cairo by Gabriel Toudouze - Louvre Museum , France

. Support better than the other one in the category indeed, mainly because of size and details --Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-24 14:17 (UTC)
Scope:
François Coppée by Nadar, looking at the viewer, restaured
Used in:
Creator:François Coppée, wikidata:Q380277
Reason:
Best in scope for this restauration. Used. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2026-05-24 14:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Museo della Marineria (Cesenatico) - Bragozzo d'altura - Floating nativity scene at dusk
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium ⚒ (talk) on 2026-05-24 18:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Pomnik Łodzian Przełomu Tysiącleci, detail view of commemorative stones
Used in:
wikidata:Q11823600
Reason:
In my opinion, this is the best image in scope to show a detail view of the stones and their cast iron plaques. -- Aciarium ⚒ (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aciarium ⚒ (talk) on 2026-05-24 18:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Pomnik Łodzian Przełomu Tysiącleci, macroscopic arrangement of commemorative stones
Used in:
wikidata:Q11823600
Reason:
In my opinion, this is the best image in scope to show how the commemorative stones of the artwork are arranged to form the pavement of Ulica Piotrkowska. -- Aciarium ⚒ (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2026-05-25 17:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Vincentiuskerk Reduzum South side.
Reason:
National Monument
-- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-25 17:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Photographs of John Quincy Adams after Philip Haas, interpretation.
Used in:
John Quincy Adams
Reason:
Very difficult new interpretation of this picture. Qwen used only for cleaning, the rest, before and after, with GIMP. -- Jebulon (talk)

 CommentIt's a good restoration, but there are some decent original photos like this one:this one. -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)  CommentI just checked the French Wikipedia page and I think I understand your approach; you wanted to publish an AI-cleaned copy of the original image for comparison. But is it necessarily the best in its scope? I'll let others have their opinions... -- JackyM59 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • @JackyM59: Sorry my friend, but maybe you should have a better look to the entire scope.The picture you quote is not « by » neither « after » Philip Haas (and team) ! I chosed especially this one, because it is the first (1843) photograph ever of a (former) president of the United States of America. Could you please reconsider your comment ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdote: Adams noted in his diary about the process of this very picture, ‘The operation is performed in half a minute but is yet altogether incomprehensible to me.’--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Best in Scope I have serious problems with English, which makes it difficult to fully understand the scope. I approve, but the experts can verify it. -- JackyM59 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JackyM59: Bonjour et merci pour ton vote. Le "scope" est :Photographies de John Quincy Adams d'après Philip Haas, interprétation. Cela signifie que ta comparaison est inopérante, car la photo que tu présentes n'est pas de Philip Haas, c'est, comme on dit, "out of scope". Il y a plusieurs versions de l'image que je propose dans Commons, à commencer par l'original. Moi, je prétends que parmi toutes les version des photos de JQA prises par Haas figurant dans Commons, c'est la mienne la meilleure, mais cela n'inclut pas les autres photos de JQA prises par d'autres photographes. Cette photo est très spéciale : c'est la toute première représentation photographique d'un président des États-Unis (1843). Il y en a une très ancienne de Lincoln, mais elle date de 1846. J'ai rajouté le mot "interprétation", car certains dénient qu'ils s'agit de "retouches" ou de "restaurations", s'agissant d'une image traitée (ils disent "générée") par IA. On me soutient que ce sont des "créations" ou des "interprétations" faites par l'IA, c'est pourquoi ils insistent sur "générée". Je ne suis pas totalement d'accord, mais c'est un autre débat. En tous cas, sache que cette image ne serait pas acceptée sur la wikipédia anglaise, qui interdit l'usage de l'IA pour les illustrations (suite au débat en FPC, on m'a bien sûr reverté mon File:John Sappington restored Flow.jpg que tu connais). J'ai quand même réussi à en glisser quelques unes, je vais suivre leur destin...Bien amicalement,--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC) PS amusant: après la prise de cette photo, Adams a noté dans son journal que ça n'avait pris qu'une demi-minute, mais qu'il n'avait rien compris au processus...[reply]
  •  Comment I have been impressed with your restoration work to date but have a query on this one. When I look closely at the face, it appears that the left eye is exhibiting astigmatism in that it is not focused on the same point (the photographer) as the right. I don't see this in other images using the original photograph. Comments? --GRDN711 (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @GRDN711: Thanks for interest. No astigmatism in the original ? Sure ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No astigmatism here neither ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    here to, less visible, but there is something slightly wrong in the right eye, isn’t it ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)--Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In April 1791, John Quincy Adams wrote, “Hurt my eyes much by observing this same Eclipse without a glass.” Five months later he was still complaining that he was “almost blind.” His eyes never fully recovered. Maybe it is an explanation ? anyway, we still have his glasses.--Jebulon (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Thank you for the thoughtful historical explanation. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2026-05-25 19:57 (UTC)
Scope:
MV Margaret’s Justice - IMO 9840635 – port side
Reason:
Best port view of this Grand Passage ferry by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ReneeWrites (talk) on 2026-05-26 11:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Mural of the Man of Sorrows in Grote of Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk (Dordrecht)
Used in:
Grutte Tsjerke (Doardt)
Reason:
Best in scope in terms of resolution and (color) accuracy. -- ReneeWrites (talk)

 Support Best in scope with no doubt among a rich category.  Question Why did He lose His eyes ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)
I'm not entirely sure how that happened, but my best guess is that it happened during the Beeldenstorm (Great Iconoclasm). I photographed a different church that was hit rather badly by this event and one thing you'll notice (looking at the contents of Monuments damaged during the Beeldenstorm) is that the destruction brought on by the iconoclasts was done in a targeted manner, targeting in particular the faces of sculptures/murals - literally defacing them. Dordrecht managed to mostly avoid this, but still went through a "soft Iconoclasm". Some of the sculptures have also been defaced (such as here) in a manner consistent with this, though not as extensively as the misericords in the church of Breda.
I plan on visiting the church again some time this year to take more photos, I can ask about it then. --ReneeWrites (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2026-05-26 16:19 (UTC)
Scope:
George Bancroft sitting, by Matthew Brady, interpretation.
Used in:
George Bancroft
Reason:
A first restoration of a very damaged original was intended but definitely unfinished 16 years ago, I interpreted it in order to clean it completely with AI and mainly with GIMP. Best in scope IMO for the photograph of this american Secretary of Navy in 1860. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2026-05-26 17:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Prunus laurocerasus (Flower buds)in development.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Phillipedison1891 (talk) on 2026-05-26 22:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Lorine Niedecker
Used in:
Cropped version extensively in use to illustrate subject
Reason:
First freely licensed image of this notable American poet; replaced fair use image on enwiki -- Phillipedison1891 (talk)
Open for review.


I have added the following to the VI Nomination ProcedureːPlease ensure you have the FastCCI gadget enabled. You should use this to identify existing VIs with similar scopes. Note that if an image shows up as FP or QI it may also be a Valued Image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


</noinclude>

Closed valued image candidates

[edit]


Pending Most valued review candidates

[edit]

Scope

[edit]
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

[edit]
   
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=1198819023"