Wikipedia:Picture peer review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:49, 7 April 2010

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 FPC and VPC

Meteorite crater at Lonar

This is a good picture of the meteorite crater at Lonar shot with a wide angle and it clearly shows the crater as well as the vegetation surrounding it.

Articles this image appears in: Lonar

Creator: ganeshrg

Suggested by: Ganeshrg (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting picture, but there are problems with technical quality and encyclopedic value. The two main problems with this picture are that it doesn't show the entire subject, and that it seems underexposed. If you shot in RAW, you might be able to solve this second problem by increasing the exposure compensation. I'm afraid fixing the first problem would require you to stitch a multi-shot panorama to achieve the wider field of view. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are talking about. The original picture was actually exposed slightly more but the sky was too bright which is why I edited the picture to underexpose it. Could you help me get the right exposure level for this? I have submitted this picture in Wikipedia Graphic Lab but I haven't seen any responses yet. Ganeshrg (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Valluvar Kottam

This image is already a VI and QI on Commons. I feel it does meet the requirements for FP.

Articles this image appears in: Valluvar Kottam, Tamil architecture

Creator: Jovianeye

Suggested by: JovianEye (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balsamorhiza deltoidea

I feel the picture meets the featured picture criteria and is a useful depiction for the article Balsamorhiza deltoidea, however I have one tiny concern. At the time of taking the picture, the reduced depth of field was an intentional effect to convey the depth in the picture. I am worried that this may hold back the picture at WP:FPC, and would like a second opinion on that matter.

Articles this image appears in: ~~Balsamorhiza deltoidea~~ Balsamorhiza sagittata

Creator: Shirik

Suggested by: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's nice, I think. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artistically I love it. Depth of field is a little shallow however. At the very least is definitely VP quality. I would support for FPC. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say those other overlapping yellow flowers right behind would create issues. DOF seems too narrow for me, but then again that train just got promoted, so who can say. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Mountain in Carbon County, Utah

Very good example of a mountain in Carbon County, Utah.

Articles this image appears in: Mountain; Carbon County, Utah

Creator: The Utahraptor

Suggested by: The Utahraptor (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You're absolutely right, The Utahraptor. This is a very good example of a mountain in Carbon County. In fact, I've driven past this mountain. I'd say it has a strong chance of being promoted. BlackCowboy9 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EV is quite weak due to it only being used in the 'Mountain' article: the article already has a lot of pictures in it, and there is a good chance that this photograph could be displaced by another photograph. You could try adding it to the Carbon County article, or to other relevant articles about the geography/scenery of Utah. As for the picture itself: the quality is just about adequate, but the composition could be better. In particular, more space at the top of the picture would make the image more appealing. I think it would also benefit from a slight levels adjustment to boost the contrast, but will wait for other views before doing this myself. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz Gems

it shows many colours of the stone's variations as well as the mystic and azotic coatings.

Articles this image appears in: topaz

Creator: Humanfeather

Suggested by: Humanfeather (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image is too small to be featured, must be 1000 px on one side. Fletcher (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of field is very shallow, and the overall sharpness is quite poor. The solution to the first problem would involve using a smaller aperture, then using a program like CombineZM to focus stack multiple images. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Cacatua galerita

I think this image would be a suitable Featured or Valued Picture, because a close-up of a bird can be very difficult to get, the clarity, lighting and angle are quite good. The subject of the photo is also fairly good. (I've never submitted anything to the Picture peer review, also I have never requested any sort of recognition for my images, is this good enough quality?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesDouch (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Sulphur-crested Cockatoo, User:JamesDouch/gallery

Creator: Photo captured by JamesDouch

Suggested by: JamesDouch (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Its encyclopedic value is very limited, since it's only used in a gallery in the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo article, and the article already contains several high-quality pictures, meaning that there is no scope for making this picture more prominent. This would cause it to fail as a Featured Picture Candidate. This also causes the picture to fail criterion #1 of the Valued picture criteria. As for the picture itself, even if it were prominently located in an article, I don't think it would pass as a Featured Picture: the angle is a bit awkward, and the picture is underexposed. Saying all this, it is an interesting picture, and I like the quirky angle: it's just that it doesn't have what it takes to gain either FP or VP status. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, that all sounds fair enough. thanks. --JamesDouch (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Jewry Wall and St Nicholas, Leicester

Good points: high resolution and adequately sharp, good EV, nice lighting on the main subject. Bad points (explaining why I posted it here and not at FPC): shadow and noise in bottom right corner, overexposed building on left, "it's just a wall".

Articles this image appears in: Jewry Wall, St Nicholas' Church, Leicester, Scheduled Monuments in Leicester, Grade I listed buildings in Leicester, Ratae Corieltauvorum

Creator: NotFromUtrecht

Suggested by: NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would like to see it featured. I think the shadow actually makes the wall stand out better. 12:51, 13 March 2010 Humanfeather

Thanks for your comment, but I'm erring towards not bothering with this one. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

1 Ilica Street

I simply stumbled upon this picture on Commons while writing the article about the building. I think it has encyclopedic value and simply looks good. I don't usually deal with photographs on wikipedia so I wanted to put it here for review to see whether it stands any chance of gaining FP or VP status. Thanks for your comments.

Articles this image appears in: 1 Ilica Street

Creator: Suradnik13

Suggested by: Timbouctou (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a nice picture (accompanying a v. interesting article too), but I'd prefer to see a version where the building is visible right down to the ground and with more sky visible at the top. I don't think it would have much chance of gaining FP status. I don't follow the VP page, so can't comment about how successful it would be there. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would have a chance as Valued Picture either. The bottom crop is too bad. --Elekhh (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Space Shuttle

I think this image shows the beauty of a space shuttle launch without actually having to be there. I've been to several launches and the night ones easily are the most spectacular. Even after seeing this very launch with my own eyes, I was speechless after seeing this photo. Unfortunately, it only now appears on the Italian wiki STS-130 page as a different user removed this image and another (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STS-130_Shuttle_Launch1.jpg). I would like to add it back to the STS-130 page, but it will continually be removed. I think it should not only be a featured image (along with the other shuttle launch photo), but that it should be re-linked to STS-130. If it gets to be featured, no one will take it down.

Articles this image appears in: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-130

Creator: Shane Lin

Suggested by: 350z33 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It won't get featured without a stable place in the article. It has serious noise problems, lens flare and you can barely see the shuttle, so it wouldn't pass FPC anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Preserved tumulus in Denmark

I think it is a beautiful and EV representation of a typical Danish tumulus. The tumulus in itself is not special. I pass it often and normally it looks quite boring, but at this specific day, where it was quite cold and the sun was setting it was quite eyecatching. I would like some native speaking help for the caption, and I request a review of its suitability for FPC. I have another version File:Tinghøj Hammershøj Kvorning 2010-01-08 2.jpg with a more centered composition. Personally I find the composition in that one more boring, but perhaps from an EV POV it is preferable as less of the space is used to illustrate the smoth hilltop. I have (reluctantly) added the photo myself to Tumulus, because another editor recently added a Danish section as it seemed relevant for me there. I am wondering if it could have its place in other articles as well? --Slaunger (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Tumulus

Creator: Slaunger

Suggested by: Slaunger (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

My first impressions are that it isn't immediately obvious that this is a Tumulus and that the image is underexposed. I wonder if the article might be ultimately served better with an image in summer without the snow (though it wouldn't look as pretty). Noodle snacks (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking your time to assess my photo, Noodle snacks! Well, it may be difficult to see, if you do not know anything about the background. A tumulus as this, with vegetation and small trees on it would not have existed in the middle of a field, if it had not been protected. They are somewhat a nuisance for agricultural operations as quite some resources is used to drive around them with tractors and their big tools such as plows. Moreover, crop yields from fields are lowered due to the area occupied by them. There are more than 80,000 registered tumuli in Denmark, among those one right next to this one. However, that one has been plowed over and part of the field, and it would be impossible to see that there had been a tumulus there if it had been registered late in the 19th century. So I would say it can be seen that it is tumulus becasue there is clearly a sharp interface between the smooth agricultured field and the tumulus itself with its untamed vegetation. With respect to the snow, I somewhat see your point, it is mainly an aesthetic element in this case to make it look more interesting. I see it as a plus though that there is not vegetation as grass and grown crops and so on as that would have obscured the shape of the tumulus relative to the field. Concerning exposure: Yes, it is somewhat dark, but I do not perceive it as underexposed myself as it is taken in the last few minutes before the sun set. A spring time photo would perhaps be better - before the crops have grown. there the interface between tumulus and crop is seen more clearly perhaps. --Slaunger (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Burnley

a large, detailed and very wide pano showing the town of burnley as well as a host of features in the surrounding geography.

Articles this image appears in: Burnley

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Childzy ¤ Talk 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What is the blue smoke 2/5 of the way in from the right? Was it present in the actual scene itself? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is just smoke, thats burnley for you! --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good: I originally thought it looked too blue to be smoke, but I'll take your word for it. I think this is worth putting in at FPC. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

Nominated (and passed) at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Ringing Tree

A good, large image of an interesting subject

Articles this image appears in: Singing Ringing Tree (Panopticons), Panopticons

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Childzy ¤ Talk 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Subjectively I think you could pick a better time of day lighting wise (more wow). I'd say that it is detailed enough etc. You need to fix the tilt. The article for singing ringing tree would be better with a recording. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, The freedom of panorama laws in the UK probably need to be checked, I'm not sure of the story there (its fine here). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a recording, i shall try it one day although the tree generally makes a noise indistinguishable from the noise of wind. Also what do the freedom of panorama laws cover? Public art, sculptures etc? and if so why is this one okay? also re; the lighting, i think it accentuates the shape of the tree as the pipes are shaded and unshaded (however i do take on board the opinion of a more experienced photographer) --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Just to confirm, public art is fair game here too.--Childzy ¤ Talk 14:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was just asking about the public art as I didn't know the story. If you can get there at sunrise or sunset (depending on the sculpture orientation) with some cloud around you would have directional light still, but it would be softer and fill in the shadows more. The colours would be less dull too. That is entirely up to you though, it doesn't really change the EV. If you can't be around at those times, then ideally you want the sun a bit more behind you. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a stitching error at the horizon above the wind turbines. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also one above and to the right of the left-most fence post on the lower right-hand side of the picture. Drew.magoo (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Olduvai Gorge

It is a high quality shot of an important location for our understanding of human history. I think it is good enough but would value another opinion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Olduvai Gorge

Creator: Noel Feans

Suggested by: Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this should be nominated to FPC, very high encyclopedic value. Image quality is not as superb as I would have expected from the 5DII; the sky in particular looks grainy and soft. Possibly it has been overly post processed and I'm seeing jpeg artifacts. Also has a few dust spots that should be cloned out. Still a great find. Fletcher (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A pretty strong highlight reduction has been performed by the look of it. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This vehicle was used to carry all dead and wounded soldiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.9.156 (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Model T Ford Ambulance

**Original** - Ford Model T Field Ambulance, 1916. Canvas on wood frame model, used extensively by the British & French as well as the American Expeditionary Force in The Great War. Top speed 45mph from a 4-cylinder water-cooled engine. (copied from photo description, with some punctuation added)

Each time I see this photo I am struck by the desperation and herosim of the people who drove and rode in this vehicle. As a current EMS worker, I'm also struck by how much ambulances have changed in the almost 100 years since this ambulance was built. The contrast of the peaceful nature of the photo versus the drama surrounding the vehicle when it was in use also appeals to me.

Articles this image appears in: History of the ambulance and History of Ford Motor Company

Creator: Wyrdlight

Suggested by: Badger151 (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a nice picture, but I'm afraid there is absolutely no way this will succeed at FPC since it fails several of the criteria. Some problems: the image is not big enough; the image is too closely cropped around the vehicle; while the subject matter is interesting, the photograph itself is not of a high technical standard or of any outstanding aesthetic quality. You might try listing it at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates (make sure you read the criteria first though), but I don't follow that page so can't advise you about your likely success. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the image and see value in it. A bit similar to this current VPC candidate, but with higher EV. I would support it as a Valued picture. Elekhh (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too attractive, but. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Western Face of Thwaites Scars

I think its a good quality image and i like the composition (forgive the bias). My problem is that Thwaites Scars although visually interesting do not have an article --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Yorkshire Dales

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Childzy ¤ Talk 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image quality is quite poor when viewed at 100%, but then this is 3000px high, so the lack of quality can be forgiven. The simple solution would be to downscale the image to hide the flaws, but it's probably best not to do that since downscaling is sometimes a controversial practice, since it involves removing detail from the image, and therefore forcing your own decision on other people. It's your choice. Also, I think your last upload went a bit too far in the attempt to increase contrast, and it now looks a bit unnatural to me. A fairly conservative levels adjustment to your first upload in GIMP produces a nice image. Finally: is it possible to make the picture's field of view slightly wider? Looks to me like the sides of the ridge might be cut off slightly. This is a nice picture though, so might be worth a shot at FPC. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the quality at 100%, was quite annoyed by the lack of sharpness. I'll restitch and produce a slightly wider crop with less adjustments --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, great: the picture is on Commons now, by the way. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New image uploaded, prolly wont show up here until the original wikipedia upload is deleted. Whats the point of even being able to upload at wikipedia now? The problem with a double system is I always forget about commons! --Childzy ¤ Talk 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The new version looks very nice: the contrast is much better, and the slightly wider FOV is a definite improvement. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If i do put it up for FP have i to wait until the wikipedia image is deleted? Otherwise i can see it causing problems --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The simplest thing to do would be to wait for the Wikipedia version to be deleted... but now there is a queue of 18,000 images waiting to be processed. I think the best thing to do would be to upload the newest Commons version over your Wikipedia version: the Wikipedia version will be deleted eventually so the duplication doesn't matter, and it would be good to get the best and latest version into articles and get the FPC ball rolling. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church (Columbia, SC)

**Original** - St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church in 2009

I'm really not sure of the criteria for Valued Pictures. The camera I used could never make an FP, but I think this picture might be a possible VP. This church is on the NRHP. My image is straight, includes the whole building, has a nice blue sky and looks good in the infobox. (There's no moire effect, at least.) Like the previous image I replaced in the article, the image is of the back of the building, but it is next to impossible to get a good shot of the front, which is always obscured by trees and parked cars. Since I took this in December, the trees are bare and one can see more of the architecture. Any input would be valued :) as I am new to this. Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 06:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church (Columbia, South Carolina)

Creator: Abductive

Suggested by: Abductive (reasoning) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not really up to date on what goes promoted at VPC, so it's hard for me to estimate its chances. The main technical faults are that it's noisy with some odd banding in the sky, it is somewhat obstructed by trees and playground equipment, and it has perspective distortion. I like to shoot architecture and I know it's often hard to get a good angle, and this seems like a decent but not really exceptional picture. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fletcher's comments regarding the technical shortcomings of the image, so you're right about the image not meeting FP technical criteria. In terms of nominating it as a valued picture I think the quality is sufficient, the framing and composition are good, and is valuable in illustrating an article in the infobox since more than a month, however I am not sure if it meets the criteria for being "among Wikipedia's most educational work of a given subject". Neverthless, if you feel that you can make a case in support of its educational value, feel free to nominate it. Elekhh (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Will not pass at FPC. Unlikely to pass VPC but possibly worth a nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Chakvetadze

Quite apart from the fact that Anna Chakvetadze is one of my top ladies in tennis, I was taken with this portrait the first time I saw it in April. I wanted to nominate it at the time, but I didn't because of the cut off elbow. The more I look, though, the more I've decided that the small framing issue isn't such a big deal. Then I noticed the action shot, which is recent, from the Internazionali BNL d'Italia (Rome Masters) in May this year. In terms of composition, there seems to be too much space at the top, but I'm reluctant to crop it because it would make it very close to the 1000px limit. Otherwise, I think it's excellent, though I wouldn't want to nominate it without first cloning out the spot near her lip. So, which is the better option? What editing might they need? Does a cut off elbow have any chance of making it? And would anyone object to a spot-free chin?

Articles this image appears in: Anna Chakvetadze

Creator: Ralf Reinecke

Suggested by: Maedin\^talk 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The cut off elbow wouldn't overly bother me in terms of a portrait (I think a number of our portraits have cut off bits and pieces), though she does look a little less than happy, but generally it's good. My biggest complaint would be that it's been overly downsampled - there is significant artifacting in the background. I would be hesitant to edit it further due to this as it's likely to be made even worse, but if we could get access to a higher quality original the other thing I would consider would be bringing up brightness a bit, particularly on her, and perhaps just try a bit more sharpening. The action shot is quite good, shallow DOF but acceptable, I agree the top should really be cropped a bit, and wouldn't object to the slight clone. Overall, probably better quality. The other thing I'm not sure about is the racquet - unfortunately it's just been cutoff and looks slightly awkward; I considered cropping at left, but I think that would leave it looking even more awkward, and again size is not our friend. Nothing there is necessarily a deal breaker, but they work against it. Given both images appear to be by Wikipedians, would it be worth contacting them and asking if they can help out with slightly bigger/better versions? --jjron (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of EV, I'd consider only the action shot as having enough to satisfy the FP criteria. I'd be inclined to support it: it's not perfect but it certainly adds a great deal to the article. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder
Conclusion

Maedin is trying to get a bigger version. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menai Suspension Bridge

I'm quite pleased with the juxtaposition of the bridge against the snow on the mountains, but would welcome comments as I'm no image guru. I took some other shots that day, and tried for a panoramic shot of the Strait / mountains, but don't have decent stitching software - any suggestions / volunteers?

Articles this image appears in: Menai Suspension Bridge, List of longest suspension bridge spans, Menai Strait

Creator: Bencherlite

Suggested by: Bencherlite ^Talk 13:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The picture looks quite nice (haven't viewed it fullsize so won't comment any further), but for free stitching software you could try hugin (software). It's a bit of a learning curve, but it's open source and can be quite powerful. --jjron (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it fullsize, it wouldn't have sufficient quality for FPC. A shame because it is quite nicely taken. There's just too much image noise (try to keep your ISO right down to no more than 100) and IMO there would not be sufficient sharpness, even allowing for a 'downsize factor'. It's still a good addition. --jjron (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. In fact, the ISO is said to have been 125, so I'm not sure how much better it would have been at 100. Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I saw that. It's hard to know for sure, but on some compacts noise just increases inexplicably as soon as you go past the lowest settings. Another issue is that some cameras (even DSLRs) handle intermediate ISO values like 125 more poorly than standard ones (i.e., 100, 200, 400, 800...). --jjron (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Cannabis sativa illustration

Please bear with me, as this is the first time I have nominated a picture for any sort of feedback. My interest and goal is to successfully nominate an image of cannabis for featured picture status. All three of the images here are of high resolution, are compelling, have free licenses, add value to cannabis-related articles, and are accurate. The second is an alternate of the first, with a white background. The third is a similar illustration, but by a different author. Trying to determine which of these, if any, are eligible for FP status. Any of the three images could be used for the Cannabis or Cannabis (drug) articles, or even for one of the many additional cannabis-related articles that currently exist on Wikipedia. A similar illustration of a pomegranate with FP status can be found here. Thanks!

Articles this image appears in: Cannabis, Cannabis (drug)

Creator: Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885

Suggested by: Another Believer _(Talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think that the obvious stains and other deterioration in the image would definitely count against it. With some restoration it might go further. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to just the first image, or all three? --Another Believer _(Talk) 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first image would have a good chance if properly restored. The restoration on the two alternates is rather sloppy; there's obvious detail loss, especially in the text, and the contrasty colors look suspect. Thegreenj 02:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

Restore it and it has a chance. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial view of Olympic Stadium (Montreal) as seen at night.jpg

High resolution aerial view of structure with very interesting structural architecture with a vantage point that is difficult to recieve under public domain. Also with the Olympics coming around and being held again in Canada, this might be an appropriate time also.

Articles this image appears in: Olympic Stadium (Montreal)

Creator: Simon.filiatreault

Suggested by: Calmer Waters 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To me the stadium is too dark and the whole image looks a bit murky (lots of brown tones). I would prefer to see something taken in better light so we could actually see the stadium a lot more clearly, but would be happy to hear alternative opinions. There's some other technical issues that may be questioned as well I suspect. BTW, I was thinking 'when are the Olympics being held again in Canada', but I guess you're talking about the other Olympics. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jjron. The dark compromises the picture's EV. It wouldn't do well at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This picture is wonderful--Simon.filiatreault (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Springs Indians

A representative photo featuring Native American craft, but needs some restoration, particularly the woman's head to the left. Brand[t] 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Creator

Suggested by: Brand[t] 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

High EV for sure. However, the deterioration is pretty bad, especially over the face of the woman on the left. Beyond my skill level of restoration. Maybe inquire with Durova. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted Durova, but she did not reply. Probably will look forward. Brandmeister[t] 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you missed it: she replied. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep:) However I noticed that she works with uncompressed TIFFs or PNGs, so this is not the case currently... Brandmeister[t] 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Needs restored for FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall near Mallwyd, Gwynedd.

It is simply a beautiful picutre that stands out on the Wales article and helps to both draw a person's attention and gives a good view of the Welsh country.

Articles this image appears in: Wales, Mallwyd

Creator: Tivedshambo|

Suggested by: Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your suggestion. While this is of value to the article, it would not succeed at FPC. The quality is just not high enough. In particular the blown highlights are far too significant, especially in the sky, but also I believe in the water. This type of photo, even when high quality, tends to struggle a bit anyway as the falls themself do not appear that outstanding and there's no other clear landmarks, and thus they are commonly met with a response such as 'could be taken anywhere', a comment on the generic nature of the image, not a question of it actually being of where it claims. --jjron (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Korean Fir cones

Seaweed farming in Indonesia

Good photograph

Articles this image appears in: Seaweed

Creator: Jean-Marie Hullot also on en wiki Jmhullot (talk)
Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd like to see some information in the caption about what specifically is being shown here. You could add it to Edible seaweed. The image quality is good enough. A little fill flash would have helped lighten the guy's face. I think a highlight reduction has been performed on the sky but the haloing is only minor. I'd say it has a good shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some details in the commons image description gleaned from the wiki article. It looks like she is picking seaweed shoots and collecting them in a basket floating on an inner-tube. Do you think is is reasonable to add this? I have also amended the caption. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==Suggestions for [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates|FPC]] and [[Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates|VPC]]==
 <!-- ↓ NEW SUBMISSIONS GO BELOW THIS LINE! MOST RECENT AT TOP PLEASE. ↓ -->
+{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/LonarMeteoriteCrater}}
 {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Valluvar Kottam}}
 {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Balsamorhiza deltoidea}}