Wikipedia:Picture peer review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:51, 14 November 2008

Picture peer review was a staging area for potential Featured Picture Candidates (FPCs).

This review was 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?

To see recent changes, purge the page cache

Shortcut

WP:PPR

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Suggestions for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Chelodina longicollis

I feel that this image displays and illustrates the turtle very well (Unlike two of the other photos I took today Image:Common snakeneck turtle (Chelodina longicollis) 1.jpg Image:Common snakeneck turtle (Chelodina longicollis) 2.jpg) and is encyclopedic.

Creator: Bidgee

Nominated by: Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The photo itself is quite OK, but I'd have a couple of issues. Firstly, in Australian usage turtle refers to species that live in/around water (see here). Being photographed on the grass with no water in sight thus looks rather unnatural for an Aust turtle. Secondly the infobox image in that article is already featured - while that doesn't mean that another image of this species can't be featured, it does tend to make it a little more difficult, especially if the EV is slightly compromised as mentioned above. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have liked it to be near water (Photo was taken about 100m from a lagoon to my west and 300m to my east is the Murrumbidgee River) and say it was moving from a lagoon to a river . I wasn't going to 'aid' it to water since I'm very careful of any type of wildlife. Bidgee (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it was there then removed, but at the time of writing it was not in the article, so therefore would be ineligable for a featured picture currently. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My idea is not to add it to the article just yet. I'll rather find out what the review about the photograph is before doing so. Bidgee (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Fabrizio Giovanardi, Oulton Park 2008

I feel this image was one of the better ones I took whilst on my first trip to a motorsport meeting. Anyway, I feel the photo gives the viewer a sense of speed, BTCC cars usually travel round this corner in excess of 90mph, whilst still maintaining focus on the subject. The image also gives a good example of the phenomenon known as "roll", see flight dynamics, where the car leans over to one side slightly as it turns through the corner at a relatively high speed. At the moment, I just wish to get an idea of where this photo would be on the scale of 1-10, obviously I know it isn't going to be 10 nor 1, bhut still back to my point - I'm hoping any further comments on the picture will give me some advise for my next trip to Oulton Park. The kit used, however, is unlikely to change so please may I kindly request no comments asking to get a "DSLR camera" as the camera I have at the moment is perfectly fine. :-)

Creator: Skully Collins, aka Phill

Nominated by: Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 20:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very nice. If you're aiming for FP, know that the standard that's set for moving racecars is very high (compare these FPs: Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg, Image:Bruno Senna 2006 Australian Grand Prix-3.jpg, Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg). However, if you're just looking for some ideas for next time, there are a couple things you might try. First, I'd definitely switch the camera off action mode and onto aperture priority. Stop the aperture down to f/8 or so; not only should this fix a lot of this picture's chromatic aberration problems, but you'll also get a more than twice as long exposure. It'll be harder to keep the camera level for the entire pan, but it will greatly exaggerate the background effect, which is one of the main things to worry about when panning. AmgMoKio has a lot of examples of how to get creative with this. Try some other angles, too. I think if the car were to face the camera more, the leaning effect would be more apparent. Finally—and this one you have no control over—try shooting in some different weather. I'm guessing it was overcast when this was taken; the lighting isn't exactly dramatic. You may want to try again on a sunnier day. Definitely, though, you've got the panning down; the car is nice and sharp. If you get a chance to go back, play around with different ways to shoot and see how things go. Thegreenj 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'd give this a strong 7 or 8 on your scale.)[reply]
Could I add something that you can consider whatever your camera. I'm not a big fan of the composition in terms of your consideration of background elements. The armco looks like it's extending out of the roof of the car, and while you may argue that the marshals (?) in the orange suits add to the scene, the fact that their bright outfits make them such a strong element and yet they look so disinterested in the proceedings shown really leads to them just being a distraction. I'm not sure how much choice you get over where you position yourself, but I'd be seeking out a less distracting backdrop if possible. Good photo overall though. --jjron (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Eritrean Railway

Self-nom. I've recently returned from a visit to this fascinating railway. This, I believe, is one of the best photographs I took of it, and would like some opinions on whether it could be made suitable for featured image or not. I don't have many skills or software for photo manipulation, so if anyone can improve things like colour balance, etc, this would be greatly appreciated.

Creator: Tivedshambo

Nominated by: — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like both the lighting and the composition a lot, and I'm sure this would pass easily were its technical quality higher. However, noise-reduction artifacts and a general lack of sharpness would likely be major impediments at a nomination. Since EXIF shows your camera settings are just about optimal, I don't know what to suggest other than that it must be the camera. If you can re-take the picture under similar conditions with a higher-quality camera, that might push it into FP-territory. I doubt this would pass FP, but it remains an excellent addition to its article. Thegreenj 22:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the camera - whilst it was one of the best in its price range when I bought it (nearly five years ago), it has seen a lot of use and is beginning to show its age. I hope to get a better camera soon, but it's unlikely I'll be back in Eritrea, at least in the foreseeable future. — Tivedshambo _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this, and have done a small edit on it. I think it adds a bit more punch to the photo, but tried to avoid overdoing it. The original looked a bit washed out to me, which seems more common when shooting with small digicams, so I tried to account for that. Also did a bit of a sharpen. I didn't find the artefacts greenj mentions to be a deal breaker, but it does lack sharpness, and I think that would be the biggest issue. Bumping up the sharpness any more than this unfortunately did really bring out those artefacts. A downsize to about 1600px wide helps and still easily makes the FPC size limits, but consequently makes the central feature, the train, a bit insignificant in size. A bit more width would have been nice too, but the composition is pretty good. Personally I would support this at FPC despite it's technical faults. I think it's 'good enough' given the lack of photos of this part of the world. I can dump up a downsized version too if you'd like to look at it. --jjron (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Tivedshambo. --jjron (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bone cross-section

I feel that this image is well-made. I am not an expert on this subject, so I was wondering if anyone could put their input on this image. For example, if I missed labeling anything, or any parts of the bone are missing.

Creator: Pbroks13

Nominated by: --pbroks13^talk? 17:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This picture contains an error. While beautifully made the image incorrectly shows an articular surface on the major trochanter. As the major trochanter is not part of any joint, it does not have an articular surface but is instead the attachment site of the gluteus medius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteus_medius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annika.v.S. (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good start, but could probably do with a bit more work (esp. in terms of an FPC nomination). I'll mention a few things in terms of questions or short comments (but not intended to be a comprehensive list):

Why are the colours faded on the cross-section part? I don't find it enhances the image.
Why is the marrow red? And why does the marrow stop where it does, and so sharply? Marrow in the shaft of long bones is typically yellow, with red marrow in the head through the cancellous bone.
Would it be a good thing to show the epiphyseal plate?
Why the inconsistent use of more technical terms, e.g., you use periosteum, but don't say use cancellous/trabecular bone?
I personally find the blood vessels a bit dominant (and generic) for a diagram designed to illustrate bones.
I don't like way you've shown the cartilage. It seems confusing and misleading. For example, to read this diagram literally, since the cartilage can be seen inside the cutaway section of bone, it incorrectly indicates that the cartilage in fact goes through the bone structure, rather than just being found around the bone end.
If you are considering putting this at FPC, you'll need to quote some references on the image page.

I'll leave it there, but it would be a good idea to have a good read through the bone related articles, starting of course with bone. Thanks for your work so far. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I think I made correct adjustments. Is there anything I missed or anything else that could be improved? --pbroks13^talk? 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still have a few issues with it. You've changed the colour of the bone marrow, but it still just stops abruptly, and there's no sign of red marrow in the spongy bone. I also don't like how the bone and the marrow is the same colour - I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I recently did a bone dissection and the bone is certainly more white than the marrow. I don't believe the epiphyseal plates are in the right spot, and to me the main diagram in the Epiphyseal plate article, which yours resembles, is misleading. There may be variations, but in my experience epiphyseal plates are further down the bone and there's only one. This is more what I am thinking of and what I've seen in my first-hand experience, though the plate is not that prominent (if you do a Google image search on it you'll see some photos that show you what I mean). And FWIW your cartilage is too pointy at the spot where the second arrow is pointing; cartilage, at least healthy cartilage, should be very smooth. I personally don't feel it's up to FPC standards, but will leave it with you. (BTW you don't seem to have addressed my original 1, 5, and 7, but that's up to you). --jjron (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. About the abrupt stop for the yellow marrow, its for the same reason the bone stops abruptly. Also, the red marrow, where is it in the spongy bone? I read its in the "spaces" but, being also no expert on the subject, I'm not sure where exactly it would be. I fixed the Epiphyseal plate, bone color problem, and the cartilage's pointy-ness (I haven't uploaded the new image yet). A few things though. The reason I didnt do #1 is because if I kept the color the same, the lighting wouldnt really work too well. It looks odd without a color change. For #5, I actually removed some of the blood vessels, is there still too much? I havent added sources yet (#7), but I will once I feel that the picture is up to par. Thanks for all your help! --pbroks13^talk? 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will leave it up to you where to stop the marrow, I see what you mean. I tend to prefer those sort of wavy angled ends (not sure if you'll understand what I mean by that, but more like what you show up around the 'medullary caivity' label (note the typo on 'caivity' BTW, also this version has a typo on Epiphyseal (Ephiphyseal) which you may have fixed)) when you're indicating that the thing is being illustrated to finish somewhere where it doesn't really, rather than showing it as an abrupt break. Re the red marrow, yes that is correct, it is in the spaces in the spongy bone, i.e., it basically fills in the spaces. OK, ultimately up to you I guess how you think the colours work best. Re the blood vessels, didn't realise you'd removed any since you just put this newer version over the old one rather than as an edit, but fair enough. Spose you've just got to get it to the standard where you're happy. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

On the proximal end of the femur, there are two growth plates. The previous image was correct, with one between the diaphysis and the head of the femur (which is an ossification center) and the other between the greater trochanter and the diaphysis. The only section of the proximal end of the femur that articulates is the head. The greater tronchater is for muscle attachment. Also, you may want to do some research on the nutrient foramen for placement of your blood vessel.

Mantis in defense mode

Nice, educational picture, captured in a rare mantis posture.

Creator: Tibor Duliskovich

Nominated by: Zoo Fari 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment. Not quite focused enough for FPC, but certainly a valuable and well-composed image. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Elvis-Meets-Nixon

Entertainer Elvis Presley meets U.S. President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office on December 21, 1970.

Well-known historical photo of two of the greatest recording artists of the 20th century.

Creator: Ollie Atkins (White House photographer; yes it's PD).

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~Oppose:~~ I believe it is a credible source but it is not enough to be deemable featurable. kdm85
- This is peer review, not FPC. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as an interesting 'news' photo, but I can see little EV to be honest. I don't think it's a good enough photo of either of them to be featured in isolation, which means it would have to be featured for the meeting. But what was the purpose of the meeting? Did the meeting lead to a change in Nixon's policies? Did it revolutionise Elvis' music? It seems to me like a general interest photo, but not anything significant beyond that, and I would therefore feel not really meeting the FPC aims of high EV. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's actually a remarkable story beyond the meeting that was photographed, and that story is the subject of a film that has its own WP article. The photo is also, apparently, the most-requested image in the National Archives. It's also featured on the Turkish wikipedia. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Spikebrennan. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Jupiter FPC's

I am wondering which of the following pictures have a decent chance at FPC.

Creator: JPL/NASA

Nominated by: Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Personally, I like the first one; however, it would be to small to be a FP. The second one is large enough, so it could have a shot. And, the third one is already a FP. --pbroks13^talk? 17:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Size rules don't apply to animations, so the first one is eligible. Thegreenj 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then I would go with the first one. --pbroks13^talk? 16:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've always loved that first Voyager approach video, but haven't I seen it in (perhaps false) colour? I seem to remember it as such, and it had more impact. --jjron (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how do I withdraw the review page? Nergaal (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Just leave it here and it will be archived in due time. In the meantime we can leave a note here re the FPC nom, which will mean it won't be further reviewed. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Nergaal. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin at Black Moshannon State Park

The image clearly shows the cabin and the surrounding forest and is well lit and nicely composed. The image is used in the FA article about the park which the cabin is in and is large enough for FP. I am submitting this here as Juliancolton suggested I nominate this for Featured Picture. The cabin is on a bit of slope, but the image may also be slightly tilted.

Creator: Ruhrfisch

Nominated by: Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The log cabin is very clearly modern, with tar shingles and steps made in a more modern style. However, we can turn that modernity to our advantage by adding it into the Log cabin article - there's a section on the creation of modern log cabins in national parks, but no examples of these modern log cabins. This would solve any notability issues, and make it an excellent candidate for FP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks, I guess I did not make it clear enough - I think it is notable as a CCC-built cabin within a historic district in the park that is listed on the NRHP. The cabin was built by the CCC between 1933 and 1937, although as you note the roof and steps are more modern replacements (since it is still rented on a regular basis). The log cabin itself and the stone chimney are original. See this reference for the NRHP nomination. [1] I will also add the image to the log cabin article next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following these comments, I think that this picture is still top-notch. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'll second this. A little pre-nomination work can help make a nomination more sure, that done, I think we've got an excellent FPC. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have nominated it at FPC here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western part of Pamban Island

The whole western part of Pamban island is covered in the picture, including the famed temple complex of Rameswaram and the television tower in the island, the tallest in India

Creator: Ravichandar84

Nominated by: Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This probably needs a comment. It's a useful image for its article, but the reality is that it's not that high quality, in particular it is very soft throughout. Also appears to have a slight clockwise tilt. It also may 'show' a lot of things, but most of them are so far away you can't make out any detail, for example you mention it shows that temple complex, but what can you really see of it? So it's useful, but unfortunately it wouldn't be successful at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Typhoon Jangmi

This image shows a well formed and powerful Typhoon. It has a great structure and a well defined eye, one of the best looking storms since Cyclone Monica in 2006. The only thing that may hold it back from being a Featured picture may be that it's not fully centered. Any thoughts on this picture?

Creator: Cyclonebiskit

Nominated by: Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I will try to fix it tomorrow by cropping the end off.--Kirk76 ^{1854 Atlantic} ^{Hurricane Season} 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is here

Wow, it looks much better in the cropped version. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

If it's cropped, it's too closely cropped for it to pass nomination. You can't see the rest of the scene. If it isn't cropped, then the picture is unbalanced. Potapych (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crop is way too small. The original is excellent, by the way. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dean

A great photo of Hurricane Dean. I was amazed when I first saw it on Wikimedia Commons. But it's a little blurry, while significantly so on the lower-left corner of the image. What can be done to fix this picture up so that it's no longer blurry, the resolution does not suffer, and it is a guaranteed featured picture?

Creator: ArielGold, but fixed up by Tom.

Nominated by: Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"What can be done to fix this picture up so that it's no longer blurry, the resolution does not suffer, and it is a guaranteed featured picture?" Quite frankly, without faking the picture to add detail that doesn't exist, nothing can be done to cure the blurriness and retain the resolution, and there's no way of guaranteeing anything FP status. In fact I find the whole picture pretty soft, and there's quite a lot of noise as well, most visible in the eye, and you wouldn't be able to do a lot about it. Hurricane pictures often struggle a bit at FPC, largely due to the fact that we see quite a lot of them, and in general they tend to look pretty similar. So there usually has to be something a bit unique about how they're taken for them to succeed, and I doubt that this picture has that 'something special'. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather for a few that are already featured, and for some reason there's also one in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites. Thanks anyway. --jjron (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Fireworks San Jose 2008

This uncropped 1-second exposure shows two fireworks bursts that fill the frame, as well as the smoke from the exploded shells.

Creator: Ikluft

Nominated by: Ikluft (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Your main problem is the top of the uppermost firework being cut off. MER-C 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Varecia variegata foot with toilet-claw

This images shows a close, detailed view of a ruffed lemur's foot and toilet-claw, anatomical features rarely seen in this much detail by the general public.

Creator: Visionholder

Nominated by: Visionholder (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi there, Visionholder! Long time no see. I see that you're moving everywhere around the encyclopedia. Keep it up.

Anyway, I don't really think I would support this at FPC, it's really only a foot. A detailed image of the actual image would be great, though. Could you take one? — Ceranthor (Sing) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a picture of the full animal, I have a few posted (such as Image:Varecia_variegata_suspensory_posture1.jpg and Image:Varecia_variegata_suspensory_posture2.jpg, but they've got noisy backgrounds or less-than-perfect lighting, so they're not good candidates for FPC. I was hoping the close-up photos of specific lemur features might earn something... but if not, I'll keep trying. It may just take me a while to get some FPC-quality pictures, since I need both a better camera and a chance to photograph lemurs outside of a zoo setting. As for photographing anything else like this, that's not likely. These photos were taken during a yearly physical exam that I was able to attend, and the SB Zoo's entire lemur colony is leaving the zoo next year. I won't get this chance again for at least another year, if I'm very, very lucky. Thanks anyway for your feedback! –Visionholder (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this is really good shot, considerably better than the one below, and of excellent EV when you realise what it is illustrating (it made go and check out the related article; I had never heard of toilet claws before). Unfortunately the quality is again a bit short (that digital zoom again, and shutter speed on this one is even slower). Also the background isn't ideal, though you probably can't really get these things to pose for the photo under normal circumstances, and other than that composition is pretty good. I have downloaded this and am going to have a bit of a fiddle with it to see if can help out at all with the quality issues, though honestly I doubt I'll be able to do enough unfortunately. Will drop a note with how I go. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a try. I can help a bit with sharpness, but it loses a lot of size (essentially 'undoing' the digital zoom effect) which is OK, but unfortunately there's a awful lot of noise, especially on the dark fur in the background. I tried noise reduction but anything strong enough to begin to fix the noise wipes out too much detail in the fur, etc. The edited version did look better, but it wouldn't get it to FP quality. (Sorry, I did the edit on a shared computer and it got wiped before I had chance to upload it; I could redo it if you really want to see it, but given no response above, I'll assume it's a 'no' anyway.) --jjron (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do appreciate the effort. Thank you for trying! –Visionholder (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly would make a good candidate at Wikipedia:Valued pictures if that does get off the ground. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lemur catta spur and antebrachial gland

This images shows a close, detailed view of a Ring-tailed Lemur's spur and antebrachial gland, anatomical features rarely seen in this much detail by the general public.

Creator: Visionholder

Nominated by: Visionholder (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a very interesting picture, but on FPC standards I doubt that it would make it through. It reminds me a bit of a nom going back some months of a close-up of a wallaby joey getting into or out of its mother's pouch. That was higher quality, and didn't do that well. The quality on this isn't great, full-res is really quite blurry and noisy, a consequence of the camera and settings used under the conditions it was taken (unfortunately it appears you even used digital zoom - please disable it). Even downsizing it doesn't hide the problems I've identified. It is good, but imo, not FPC quality. --jjron (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately for my camera to zoom in that close, digital zoom was required. (Maybe someday I'll be able to afford a digital camera that doesn't require digital zoom.) Oh well... –Visionholder (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can sympathise with your camera issues, however can only urge you to give up on the digital zoom. A further out shot without the digital zoom would have allowed you to crop into the picture and still easily exceed the minimum FPC size limits; if you stick to the digital zoom I'll go out on a limb and say you'll never get an FPC quality shot. With a lower zoom you would also get less effect from camera shake, and your camera would also have possibly set itself to a higher shutter speed, also assisting in better quality (I assume this was taken with basically auto settings, as I realise these cameras allow only limited manual control).
    FWIW I believe you can get an FPC quality shot with your camera, though I'm not suggesting it will be easy (on the other hand it's not necessarily easy getting an FPC regardless of what camera you've got, it's just the less 'able' your camera, the harder it is). I have recently purchased a later release in your camera line for work, the IXUS 80IS (SD1100 IS), and I think I would be able to get similar quality shots under the right conditions as my old Canon A95, which I have gained FPs using. With less manual control and the higher number of megapixels I feel these cameras are more limited than my A95, despite being 'newer and better' technology, but it would be possible. --jjron (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The Fall of Lucifer

Just in time for Halloween

Creator: Gustave Doré

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Cumulonimbus over NYC

This image is one of the few that show the whole cloud without any obstructions, it has a relatively high resolution (comparing similar images) and pictures a realistic view from an aircraft (blue haze, buildings, rivers). It is also pretty sharp and shows a lot of detail. As to the stitching errors, I took the three segments in a matter of 6 seconds with a full-automatic camera, and the plane was moving really fast (i.e. they are unavoidable).

Creator: jezFabi

Nominated by: JezFabi (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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 19: / Line 19: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/The Fall of Lucifer}}
 {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Cumulonimbus over NYC}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Waverley Cemetery}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Chad Dawson}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Pope John Paul II funeral}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/EarthMagneticFieldChange}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/FieldSurgery}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Swing bridge}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Nilkanth Varni.JPG}}
-{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Image:PIA07712 - F ring animation.gif}}
 ==Picture Peer Review Archives==