Wikipedia:Picture peer review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:18, 8 April 2008

Picture peer review is a staging area for potential Featured Picture Candidates (FPCs).
This review is a useful "spot check" before making a formal FPC nomination – a working area where you can get some creative feedback, request help with useful pictures that might need minor editing, or advice with finding the best article that they illustrate – giving that nomination its best possible chance of promotion.

Note: "peer review" usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers who are equally familiar with and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not a formal academic peer review in that sense. Images that undergo this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other.

For general advice on editing pictures prior to uploading, see Wikipedia:How to improve image quality.
For the specific criteria against which FPCs are judged, see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?

Purge server cache

Shortcut

[[:|WP:PPR]]

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Instructions

To ask for advice on a picture, follow these three steps:

Step 1: Create a new subpage named Wikipedia:Picture peer review/ExampleName replacing ExampleName with an appropriate title:

Step 2: Fill in the requested data, including your reasons for nominating, and click Save page.

Step 3: Transclude the newly created subpage to the TOP of the Picture peer review list (direct link).

Suggestions for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Place suggestions and self nominations for WP:FPC below. Anyone can then comment on a suggestion and recommend improvements. If the suggestion meets FPC guidelines and no significant objections remain, another editor can second the suggestion and move the candidate to WP:FPC for voting. If a suggestion doesn't find a seconder within one week, it can be removed to make way for new suggestions.

Quartermaster Dick Libby, USN (1834)

I love this painting. Dick Libby would have made a fine Rembrandt common man model. The worn face, the rumpled uniform -- this artist knew his stuff. Compare to Image:Der Mann mit dem Goldhelm.jpg.

Image is from the Naval Historical Center. [1] links to full picture data, including the quote in the caption. WP Image links to Uniforms of the United States Navy and Old salt.

Nominated by: Pete Tillman (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Size doesn't meet FP criteria and I suspect some people will have problems with the text on painting, although that's easily fixed. My other concern would be encyclopedic value. I don't know how well it really illustrates Old salt. I think with a bigger scan and better article placement this could gather some support though. Tomdobb (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment -- I didn't realize there was a 1000px minimum, but "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could be acquired." Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. The only real way to get a better photo would be to rephotograph the original painting(which is, or was, at the United States Naval Academy), not very practical since I live in Arizona.

Perhaps this image could also illustrate a historical naval uniform article, but no such article seems to exist. Hmm.... Thanks again, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image now linked to Uniforms of the United States Navy, which has some historical info. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The historical policy is more for if the original itself is historical on its own right but fails the technical requirements. Here is a painting 2.5 feet tall; the problem is not in the historical origninal but in the modern digital reprodiction. Thegreenj 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- and that's an insoluble problem, without rephotographing the painting. Oh, well. Something to do on my next trip to Annapolis (or yours??).

Too bad, as it's an exceptionally fine painting. Better reproduction than the Rembrandt (above) too <GG>.Thanks for your comment, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, do you know about Wikimedia Commons? If you upload free media there, rather than to Wikipedia, it can then be accessed from foreign language Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects. Thegreenj 00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The Richland Carrousel Park II

I think this is a very nice quality view of the Richland Carrousel Park with the nice carrousel horse and the bright colors. I'm not sure if this picture is good enought for FP yet?

Nominated by: OHWiki (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's definitely a nice picture, but I think it would likely have trouble at FPC for composition and encyclopedic issues. The picture is a bit tilted, and the composition doesn't have a clear subject—the park itself is cut off, while the statue is relatively small. However, the real problem is in its encyclopdic value. Its value in illustrating Carousel is questionable, since it doesn't actually show a carousel. And at Mansfield, Ohio, does it actually show something that would help a viewer know more about the city? The exterior of the facility doesn't seem unique, and the interior which the city is apparently known for isn't seen. Again, nothing bad about it, but it would likely struggle at FPC. To see the standard accepted for FP, check out our other featured architecture pictures. Thegreenj 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Olympic fireworks

I think it's a very nice quality picture, with vibrant colours and nice reflections on the water.

Nominated by: Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a cool picture, but I don't think it warrants a FPC for two reasons. It's fairly grainy, and also, what exactly is the encyclopedic value of the photograph? Also, the composition might be a problem as well. --Hetar 00:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cropped some of the black out and reduced the noise. Save-Me-Oprah ^(talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty photo but there's a few things that can't be corrected that may be issues at FPC. All the red going off to the left of the image (I'm not even sure what it is, probably smoke, but why's it red? That's not that important really). Anyway, to me it helps make the image look unbalanced - I want to see more of it but it just cuts off. I see you've cropped to include the Opera House, but that comes up very dark, and adds to the unbalanced feel, as the lit up bridge is so much more visually dominant. If the image was cropped just to the bridge without worrying about the dark opera house sails at the left, it may feel better balanced - just a suggestion, not sure how well it would work. It also appears that the fireworks and smoke (?) are pretty badly motion blurred - this is not easy to avoid when taking fireworks at night as the shutter speed will tend to adjust for the darkness and be quite slow, thus the fast moving fireworks will blur, and if you manually set for the fireworks, everything else tends to come out really dark. It's a pretty hard balance. I waffled a lot here I think, but some just some ideas to consider. Thanks, --jjron (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Tjörnin Panorama

A 180 degree panorama of Tjörnin in Reykjavík

I shot this panorama and i guess i just wanted some feedback before i shoot some more. It's made up of 7 pictures all shot on the same place near Tjörnin in Reykjavík. The stitching was done by another user.

Nominated by: Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The two most prominent issues that I see are vignetting, making seams visible, and apparant tilt, which looks like it is coming from your choice of projection. I don't know anything about fixing the vignetting, but I believe there is a Commons user who does. Drop him a note and see if you can do anything about it. Thegreenj 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lenticular Cloud over Wyoming

I have added it to the "Clouds" article because there wasn't any of this particular type of cloud formation so pictured. It seems fairly good at depicting a rare type of cloud, so that's why I am submitting it here. I also would like to nominate it for FPC, but since I've never done this before, am not sure how.

Nominated by: HaarFager (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's very noisy at full size. I doubt it would pass at FPC. Tomdobb (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the noise will be a bit of a downer, particularly because it obscures the outline of the cloud enough to make it difficult to discern the characteristic shape. Our other "altocumulus standing lenticularises" at lenticular cloud are also less than spectacular, but they do allow the viewer to see the outline clearly. Matt Deres (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

HaarFager (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeling Bridge

Covered bridges are an important development in the history of architecture and engineering. This is an example of a well-preserved quintessential covered bridge over a significant local route.

Nominated by: Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The image suffers from horrible JPEG artifacting and as such won't succeed. Do you still have the full-quality original? MER-C 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Bicoloured Antbird

The legs and feet of ant-following antbirds are strong and adapted to gripping vertical stems and branches. The leg muscle of the Bicoloured Antbird comprises 13% of its body weight.

This is a beautiful image of a difficult to see bird. The species, like most of its family, tends to skulk in the undergrowth in the forests of South and Central America and we have few images of the family. More importantly it illustrates an important aspect of the biology of some species in the antbird family.

Nominated by: Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a great picture, my only concern is the bird's legs and feet (which are the primary focus of the photo caption) are somewhat out of focus at full size and might meet with some opposition at FPC. Tomdobb (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flash is a little harsh, esp apparent on the tree. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DOF issues with the legs/feet are a shame because the head and body of the bird are quite crisp. I agree with Kunchan that this has a chance at FPC, but I'd change the caption to something more generic about the bird - no need to specifically draw attention to the one bad area. Matt Deres (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to change the caption - I'd rather that the image had a caption that was informative of an interesting aspect of antbird biology than have a bland, less informative caption and a star above it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This has a great chance - don't agree with the comment re the flash - you should submit and let it take it's chances --Kunchan (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at FPC by jjron. --jjron (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez JS1200 guitar

I think its pretty good, and a lot of people have told me how much they liked it. Before I bought my guitar the biggest problem I had was finding a decent picture of the finish on the internet, I think this shows it pretty well.

Nominated by: Elo4eva (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When you zoom in all the way, it's kind of blurry. Also, I'm not sure if you wanted to only show that segment of the guitar, but I think a picture of the guitar as a whole would be more helpful, considering the size of the picture you can get. As it is now, when it's smaller, it's a pretty exceptional picture. Elephantissimo (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would fail FPC based on composition issues. Not enough of the guitar is in the picture. I'm sure it makes a fine addition to the article it's in, but I couldn't see it as a FP since the whole body of the guitar isn't in the picture. Tomdobb (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

K2

It shows a whole side of the mountain, good quality, the smaller mountains on each side give it a nice frame-like picture and add symmetry. But I wasn't so sure, so I posted it here, to the peer review.

Nominated by: Rj1020 (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment -- I like this photo, but it is of low resolution. This photo has better res. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmottl (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 March 2008

The second photo looks really good, but the first one seems a little small for what you're trying to show. Elephantissimo (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compositionally I really like the first one far better. The big issue I can see is with size. It does meet the requirements (at least 1000px on the longest side), but for landscape type shots people usually expect somewhat more. Personally I feel it would fail on those grounds alone, but would be quite interested if a bigger version could be found. --jjron (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Late Medieval Trade Routes

I've never nominated a picture before, and I have no idea what is required, so I'm putting it up here first. I should add that it's not entirely my own work. The background map is this one: Image:Europe outline map.png, made by User:IMeowbot, who in turn based his work on "PD maps (copyright expired) from The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd." The routes and towns are added by me though, and it's based on a number of different sources, so there's no copyright violation. The map is currently in use in the article Late Middle Ages.

Nominated by: Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Map ought be in vector form. This is not too tough, if we can use one of the many blank svg maps and add on the trade routes on top. If you're not familiar with svg, I can probably do it for you. One thing I like to see in maps is that any color codes are defined directly in the image itself, rather than having to memorize an external code. So the trade routes ought to be labeled directly. I'm not sure whether this map has enough of a special quality to be featured; putting lines on a base map is pretty routine, so in my mind to be feature-worthy it should have extra content, or be very carefully and precisely constructed. Can you think of anything to add to make it really special? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer, the original is in vector form as I made it in Microsoft PhotoDraw, I'm just not able to save it as svg. I thought about adding the colour code to the map; that's why I left the blank space in the upper right corner. If I do that I'm gonna have to also upload a second version for translations though. As for adding anything more than that, I don't think that's a good idea. I wasn't going for opulence, but clarity of information and esthetic appeal, and I don't want to sacrifice any of that for featured status. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say if you can upload a vector version, removing the dotted line around the border, adding direct labels, and listing the major goods being traded along the routes, I would support the map on FPC. Listing important trade goods adds content to the map without making it cheesy or just being decoration. Also consider adding a title with the time frame in question, directly on the map. The advantage of svg is that it is very, very easy to translate the map into other languages. On commons, there are many images which have been translated into several languages in this way. If you're not familiar with it already, try inkscape; this free drawing program is really a great way to draw. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've actually thought about adding trade goods; if there's a way I can do it without making the map too cluttered then that's probably a good idea. Anyway, thanks for your comments, it's been really helpful, I'll see if I can find time to look into this. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 22:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pet Iguana

While it isn't the main picture in the iguana page or the green iguana page but the picture is highly detailed. Not only could you count the scales on the iguana when zoomed in, you can also get a good look at its habitat.

Nominated by: Elephantissimo (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I doubt this would pass FPC given how much the cage obscures the iguana. It is a nicely detailed picture though. Tomdobb (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good picture. It's very detailed and it adds to the iguana page. Preceding unsigned comment left by P h o e b e™ 23:44, 26 March 2008
Thank you for your nomination. The focus on the iguana is quite good given the conditions this has been taken in, and detail is quite good. Nonetheless, this would unfortunately stand no chance at FPC due to the overwhelming presence of the cage, especially given that it obscures the animal. General composition is actually not ideal. Given that this is a pet, is there no way of getting a photo of it outside the cage?
Additionally, for FPC there is usually a need for good encyclopaedic value and significant contribution to articles. In general, when an image is used only in an image gallery (or galleries), as this is, that would not be regarded as a 'significant contribution'.
For an idea of the standard of animal related FPCs see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --jjron (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pied Cormorants

Good looking, decent sized picture that has encyclopaedic value in terms of illustration and identification of the subject. The composition with the two birds seems quite interesting without being too unnatural or distracting. I'm not a great judge of technical merit so apologies if I'm wasting your time.

Nominated by: Guest9999 (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I stumbled across this just a while ago while trying to find a suitable home for another picture, and came to the same conclusion as you on a first glance . Then I thought it through and got some doubts, specifically about that big blown highlight on the birds neck. Not 100% sure on this one ... ---Mad Tinman _T _C 15:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at it at full res so can't say too much, but think it is better compositionally than the one hugely supported but currently struggling for EV on FPC (i.e., at least these look like natural poses, which the other one never did). Two issues, that blown section of neck is prominent even at image page size, and even though composition is more natural, the second bird actually hurts the photo with how it overlaps the first. Then there would also be the issue of going for a second Pied Cormorant so soon after the other one... --jjron (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Venice centre

It seems like a good picture, and it adds value to the Venice article.

Nominated by: Æe tlr Cre ejl 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's certainly big enough, but it's not very sharp. And I'm not sure what exactly I'm looking at besides a lot of water. Could probably benefit from a crop. I really can't see this passing at FPC.Tomdobb (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Compositionally, I think it would be better to have the cityscape at the bottom third of picture, with the sky occupying two-thirds, rather than foreground water occupying almost the entire image. A bigger concern, however, is that the size of the photo (subject too small) does not depict the subject particularly well, or with sufficient detail. Specifically, the Grand Canal takes a bend around the middle of the city-scape; that is, the left and right side of the city are actually island/mainland separated by the Canal, although the picture seems to give the impression that the landmass is continuous from left to right. --Malachirality (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

STS-123 launch

I believe that this image has an opportunity to become a featured image, but there might be room for improvement. How can I improve it?

Nominated by: Soxred93 | talk bot 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for nominating this image at PPR. We get quite a lot of NASA images through FPC, and standards are pretty high. This is an attractive image, but we already have a number of shuttle FPs, including photos taken at the launch (see Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Aeronautics and aviation/Space); admittedly I don't think we have a night launch as FP. However, this would currently stand no chance at FPC due to the odd smudging effect at the left of the booster rockets. Beyond that, technical quality is nothing outstanding. If you have access to a better quality version, in particular one without the smudging, you could try uploading that for another attempt. Thanks for your contribution. --jjron (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Su-27 on landing

Good quality, very close to flying aircraft

Nominated by: Mottld (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Nominated at FPC here by Mottld six minutes after this posting. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Denver replenishment

I believe that this is one of the better images of an underway replenishment (aka replenishment at sea) by showing the actual people, rather than just cables being shot across. But then again I may just be blind due to the fact that I took this picture. It may also need to be cropped. And if anyway possible, whether it's FPC quality or not.

Nominated by: crassic!^[talk] 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a good picture, but I can't see it reaching featured status for a number of reasons. The main issue is to do with composition; it's all a little messy (I accept that that's probably inevitable with a photo like this, but it must be possible to frame it a bit better, say with the taller parts in the background framing the picture). Lighting also seems a little dull, and would benefit from more appealing colouring in the sky. Not being familiar with this process, I have no way of telling that underway replenishment is happening (it just looks like four blokes on deck to me), and if it is a very good shot of this, wonder why it isn't in that particular article. To be honest, until I checked the article and looked more closely here, I didn't even realise there were two ships involved here, much less what was happening. Thanks for putting it up here though. Would be interested to hear other opinions. --jjron (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. crassic!^[talk] 06:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder

McCain

Seems like a very good picture, with a significant "wow" factor. It has a high technical standard, high resolution, and is among Wikipedia's best work. It has appeared at the main Wikipedia page (see here). It has a free license, and adds value to the John McCain article. It's accurate, neutral, and has a good caption. And it does not have any inappropriate digital manipulation.

Nominated by: Ferrylodge (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It certainly looks wonderful in the infobox and contributes to the article. However, the resolution is way below the featured picture standard, the image isn't in focus on his entire face, and I actually think the color balance is off a bit. - Enuja (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I uploaded it from Flickr and cropped it, which may have hurt the resolution. Is it possible to re-upload and re-crop in a higher resolution (perhaps also fixing the color balance)? Unfortunately, I don't have the best software on my computer.Incidentally, there's currently a discussion at talk:John McCain about whether to use this photo in that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I hadn't seen that page. It certainly looks like there are many free-use higher resolution images that contribute just as much to the article as this one does. In order to a be a featured picture, this image would have to be of much, much higher resolution; cropping is immaterial as his face is not of high enough resolution. - Enuja (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sydney Olympic Stadium/ANZ Stadium

Just need a few opinions and maybe some advice on what settings to use on my Fuji Fine Pix...

Nominated by: . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Sydney Olympic Stadium/ANZ Stadium darker version

Just need a few opinions and maybe some advice on what settings to use on my Fuji Fine Pix...

Nominated by: . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This version is better for a whole raft of reasons. Your first version was basically over-exposed. Darker rendering helps reduce noise in the sky and brings back some colour saturation in the foreground. This version is also a much better crop, bringing back the missing RHS and allowing more headroom for the main subject. It's also nearer a correct orientation, referring to the severe tilt on the original version. It's a nice image, great for the encyclopedia, and it's certainly worth considering some finishing touches – I'd look at less sharpening, another slight rotation to bring the verticals at the centre of the image upright, maybe with a little perspective correction, noise reduction for the sky, etc – but to be frank, for FPC it would be better to reshoot it just before dark, rather than at night. Apart from making for a much better-looking sky, it should help reduce the heavy, distracting contrast between the darkest and brightest areas of the image. These are fairly major FPC-failing issues which you really can't do much about here. Camera-wise, a smaller aperture would be the biggest single improvement you could make. --mikaul^talk 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add: you do realise the edge of the frame is showing at the top, don't you? Clone it out, rather than crop it. --mikaul^talk 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder

Kinshasa Skyline

It just looks really cool with the extended exposure time and it's effect on the lightning and traffic. It's also high resolution. Very eerie, like it's of some fantasy city.

Nominated by: Nick90210 (talk) 09:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a very nice picture, but my feel is it would likely fail on encyclopaedic grounds. It's not a particularly informative photo of the city itself (which is the only article it's illustrating). The focus really seems to be the lightning over the city. This would seem a better bet on Commons FP. Thanks for the nomination. --jjron (talk) 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see this as a featured picture. I don't even have the picture maximized, and it already looks blurry. Rj1020 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

California Gold Rush relief map

High detail, good use of color, lots of encyclopedic content - clearly shows the most important locations discussed in the California Gold Rush article. Easily meets all the FP criteria. (This is upgraded version pursuant to earlier suggestion.)

Nominated by: NorCalHistory (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

While this certainly very useful, it's not a very aesthetically pleasing map. The labels (and especially the lines) look bulky and unprofessional. I wasn't able to find on the image page where the original map came from, and the original map, while it does contain a lot of relief information, also doesn't look very good. It's a great contribution to the encyclopedia, but not as a high-quality image. - Enuja (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made suggested changes available - perhaps you could let me know what "bulky" means in a bit more detail, or more specifically, your suggestion for fixing.NorCalHistory (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder

Picture Peer Review Archives

Picture Peer Review Archives Mainpage

Shortcut

WP:PPRA

Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary.

2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2007: January - June | July - December
2006: January - December

Pictures that need placing on an appropriate article

If you have an excellent picture, but can't think where to put it, add it to the section below. Similarly if you need help in writing a new article on the subject of a photo, request it below. If you are unsure of what plant or animal is in a picture please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

Pictures that need moving from other Wikipedias

If you have found a good picture on another language Wikipedia that would benefit the English Wikipedia, suggest it below. The image may need confirmation on its identification and assistance with translating the caption and moving to Commons before placing on the equivalent English language article.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 <!-- ↓ NEW SUBMISSIONS GO BELOW THIS LINE! ↓ -->
+{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Quartermaster Dick Libby, USN, an Old Salt}}
 {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/The Richland Carrousel Park II.jpg}}
 {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Image:Olympic fireworks.jpg}}