Wikipedia:Picture peer review

Purge server cache

This page is a staging area for Feature Picture standard pictures before full nomination on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates as well as a working area to request help with useful pictures that need editing help, or help with finding the best article that they illustrate.

Note: Peer review is the process of review by peers and usually implies a group of authoritative reviewers who are equally familiar and expert in the subject. The process represented by this page is not formal peer review in that sense and articles that undergo this process cannot be assumed to have greater authority than any other, merely that they have been scrutinised by other editors who are interested in the issues with illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Instructions

To ask for help with a picture fill out an FPC template, then add it to an appropriate section below.

• Create a new subpage named   Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName
• Copy the following content into the new blank subpage:
  • Do not change this portion of text at all: {{subst:PAGENAME}}

===[[Wikipedia:{{subst:PAGENAME}}| ExampleName ]]===

[[ Image: Example.jpg |thumb| Caption goes here ]]

Add your reasons for nominating it here; 
say what article it appears in, and who created the image.

*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~ 
*
'''Comments:'''
*

'''Seconder:''' 
*
<!-- additional comments go above this line -->
<br style="clear:both;" />

• Add   {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}}   to the top of the appropriate section below.

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.

Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Cauldron Park

The Cauldron used for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah was moved from the top of the Olympic stadium and now anchors the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Cauldron Park just south of Rice-Eccles Stadium. The flame is lit on special occasions, such as the opening weekend of the 2006 Winter Olympics.

Another Utah-related photo to consider.

This is a nice sunset-lit photo of the 2002 Winter Olympics's cauldron in its current setting, the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Cauldron Park, just south of the stadium used for Opening and Closing ceremonies, Rice-Eccles Stadium.

It shows the flame lit (for the opening weekend of the Turin games this past February - usually it's not lit), the 2002 Olympic logo and slogan (on the back of the stadium scoreboard, facing the park) and a portion of the bleacher seating and press-box area of the stadium.

I took this photo, it's in the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Cauldron Park and Rice-Eccles Stadium articles.

My only concern is the tilting - subjects on either side point toward the middle, but I guess that's what happens when pointing up to shoot a subject.

• Nominate and support. - — Zaui (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Image is tilted, slightly grainy, unclear what the focus of the picture is. -Ravedave 03:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

Great Gallery

[[IGreat Gallery, Canyonlands National Park.jpg|thumb|Great Gallery, Canyonlands NP]]

Picture edit and caption re-write: This portion of the Great Gallery, found in Horseshoe Canyon, is an example of a Fremont pictograph (painted rock art). The full panel is 200 feet long and 15 feet high, and the paintings are life-sized human figures. The largest figure pictured is about 7 feet tall.

Moondigger edit - color, contrast adjusted, plus sharpened

I'm endeavouring to get more pictures from Utah featured, but wanted some constructive criticism before proceeding.

I took this picture, it appears in Pictogram, Fremont culture and Horseshoe Canyon. I think it's a pretty good detail of the gallery and a good example of a Fremont pictogram.

• Nominate and support. - — Zaui (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Great encyclopedic contribution, but then you knew that :-) Before nominating for FPC I'd (maybe) try to increase the contrast/reduce apparent exposure a bit (if that can be done without making it less faithful - I'm looking at the top left) and I'd add some of the info from Horseshoe Canyon to the image page and caption. You definitely need to do the second one — images get opposed frequently for not having information to back them up. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• See the edited picture. I decreased the brightness a little (too much made it look odd) and added more info in the caption. — Zaui (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto on the caption. Add some more information on the image page to summarize what's pictured. Otherwise, the edited shot looks good. bcasterline t 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• I re-wrote the caption. Anything else I should mention? — Zaui (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

• Your edit is good, and I will certainly support this nomination for FP, but then I'm a history freak. I can't stress enough though, the more info added to the image page the better (add the info from the new caption to the image page itself). Do we know what this picture signified or why it was painted? How do modern descendents of the people (if there are any known) explain or feel about the art? The reason for the searching questions is that I know from experience this image won't seem visually striking to everyone: that isn't strictly a criterion but FPCs do sometimes get opposed because they need words to explain why they are interesting. If the words are lacking they have no chance. On the other hand, most FPC voters will read the caption and image page, and if that makes an unusual subject more interesting it has a much better chance ~ Veledan • Talk 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I made an edit attempt as well. I would support this image for FP nomination. -- moondigger 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Veledan, thanks for the comments. I'll work up the photo information further - and besides the image page, I could probably add it to the Fremont culture page.— Zaui (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this is a good, crisp photo of an interesting subject, and I would support it when it is nominated. Mooveeguy 20:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fort Snelling Round Tower

File:Fort Snelling Round Tower large.JPG

Fort Snelling's round tower, the one surviving piece of the original fort, in June of 2004. The flag is at half-mast because of the recent death of former President Ronald Reagan.

Wahkeenah created this photo, which appears in the following: Fort Snelling, Minnesota, Fort Snelling State Park, and List of Minnesota state parks. I'm struck by its haunting beauty, and think it could be a featured image.

• Nominate and support. - Jonathunder 18:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• While I certainly like this one, I fear it won't get nominated because of size. Perhaps if Wahkeenah has a larger copy lying around...--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked, and he obliged. This is the larger version. Jonathunder 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the full-sized and uncropped image. Whether the slice of pavement in the foreground detracts from it is up to you all to decide. If you think so, let me know, and I'll slice it out. Wahkeenah 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would crop out the pavement, and the darker (shadowed?) grass in the foreground. Too bad the flag was half-staff - I think it would look better fully raised. — Zaui (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I could always go back and try again, once things are green again... about June or so. Wahkeenah 17:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

Beach with gentle surf

Sandy beach with gentle waves rolling in

This is a self-nom, submitted because I'd like feedback about this picture and any suggestions on how to take better pictures. I think it is a very nice picture, and it is used at the beach article alongside a description of the soothing sounds of the surf. I think it is very appropriate for that. If magnified, one can see that the horizon tilts. One question I have is whether I should try to crop it to straighten it, and if so, what would be a good software pacakge for that.

• Nominate and support. - Johntex\^talk 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• Is the horizon perfectly horizontal? It looks a bit lopsided. BrokenSegue 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, it is definitely not horizontal. What would be the recommended way to straighten it? Johntex\^talk 16:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would definitely straighten it. The GIMP works great: shift+R to rotate and shift+C to crop. bcasterline t 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

An overview of DNA structure

An overview of the structure of DNA.

This illustration is meant to give a general overview of what a section of DNA looks and the shape of it is like. It is not (yet) intended to be a "Structure of DNA" diagram, I'm still working on that one. What do you think about the general style of the presentation so far?

• Nominate and support. - (Actually, I'm not nominating anything of course, just asking for feedback ;-). Mstroeck 03:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• A good graphic, but the format is a bit awkward, high and narrow. can you shorten it a bit? As is, it would have to be very small in an article (I've changed the size from 300 to 100 px, more like it would be in an article - you can revert that if you wish.) The text is vertical, hard to read, and totally unreadable in ANY thumbnail below 300 px. How about turning the whole image 90 degrees? --Janke | Talk 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about image size. Actually, something can be said for having a rather large image. For example, I think it doesn't look out of place with 270px over at the DNA article, but that's up to personal preference, really. Mstroeck 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He could shorten it (but not shorter as to not be able to see at least ONE turn) but it would not be as representative as this one where EACH groove and chain can be seen making a "turn" (FOUR total). This type of DNA image is ALWAYS vertical - it is an unwritten rule. To get the "feeling" i have this image for ya :).
Your model looks awesome, i didn't know people make this kind of stuff - live steam locomotive scale models. -- Boris 20:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Boris and Janke, thanks for your comments. I also think that the format of the picture can not be changed. The informational value would suffer a lot. I want to show the minor and major grooves and the fact that they repeat periodically. I do not want another neat and tidy but inacurrate picture of DNA. Apart from that, I don't really know what to do with the backbone. People have told me that they prefer leaving the phosphates out and only showing the ribbon. I think that's a particularly stupid way to introduce DNA to people who know nothing about it. The fact that each half of the double-helix is a single molecule is lost when you don't show the sugars/phosphates and how they "connect" the nucleobases. As it is, some atoms "stick out" of the ribbon, which might not be ideal. What do you think? Mstroeck 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I think that color and shading are well-used and the result is pleasing to the eye. I agree that the annotation text is too small, a bit distracting. My suggestion would be three images side by side; 1) a ribbon that is the envelope of the molecule, more or less, with the minor and major gooves (opposite sides) different colors. 2) The present illustration with no text annotations, but with a scale bar. 3) The schematic backbones replaced by atoms, i.e., the molecule in all its splendor.
  This would make a striking .gif animation rotating about its long axis. That is something a paper encyclopedia cannot do. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, 304 articles in enwiki link to this illustration. That must make it one of the most used illustration in wikipedia. It is hard to think that there is very much wrong with the illustration as it stands. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

Crepuscular Ray Sunset

• 
• 
  Exposure Bracket
• 
• 

Which if any of the above photos might be worth putting up for FPC? I personally like the exposure bracket. --Fir0002 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I like 2 and 4 the most. Why not add more than one to FPC (or all of them)? Broken S 13:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Golden Meadows

Supercolor Cumulus Field

Supercolor Cumulus Field 2

This picture appears in the articles Cumulus cloud and Cumulus humilis and it perfectly represents the appearance of cumulus clouds and the good weather associated with them. I also believe that the picture also captures the "feeling" of beautiful weather. The kind of day where you can step outside and inhale deeply and say "Ah! What a beautiful day!". It's both artistic and encyclopedic!

• Nominate and support. - PiccoloNamek 00:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The blues in the sky are a bit grainy, and could use a smooth. I haven't looked through all the old revisions because images are loading so slowly, just the current one and the first; but I do think that cloning out the plant in the foreground, just left of center, might have been a mistake. (On the other hand, the cloning was very well done, and I wouldn't have noticed it at all if I hadn't looked at the old revision.) Trivial nitpick: I'd prefer that the spelling in the image name was correct. —Cryptic (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh God! I made a spelling error. I'll never live this down. And I've always prided myself on my good spelling too! I'll have to leave Wikipedia forever, now. But before I do, I can upload this smooth version. *Looks at image title* Man, how embarrassing.PiccoloNamek 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's nice, and I like it, but I have a feeling that people might think it a bit ordinary. If Melbourne Yarra Afternoon can be dismissed as ordinary, I'm pretty sure that this will be too. Raven4x4x 07:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it's stunning, personally.PiccoloNamek 07:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) :)

I do too, but I thought the Melbourne one was stunning as well... Raven4x4x 13:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I think anyone can go outside a take a picture of the clouds, but not many people can capture the essence of what a beautiful day feels like. :)PiccoloNamek 18:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it's a nice day. The picture does not take me, though - the horizon is bland, and the clouds are being chewed at by the wind. Denni ☯ 01:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seconder:

NYC Skyline

New York City Skyline.

I've seen some better panoramas, but still very good. Its also a 360° panorama and this skyline is a classic subject.

• Nominate and support. - Solipsist 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• To be honest, I don't like it. A 360 degree panorama, IMO, is just too much. Look at the horizon: it's all over the place. A horizon tilted at a fraction of a degree will cause people to upload an edit on WP:FPC tilting it straight - so if a panorama is too broad to make a straight horizon, it shouldn't be a featured picture. Of course, it's happened before, I believe. Aside from that, though, it's a very nice image. Zafiroblue05 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconder:

• Support I think it's a great picture, and I don't fully understand the concerns over the tilt. It's a beautiful view of Manhattan, and one that certainly makes me want to go to the Empire State Building someday.The Last Melon 04:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games Opening Ceremony

Delta Goodrem performs as a fireworks display takes place in the finale of the Opening Ceremony of the 2006 Commonwealth Games.

I took this picture at the Opening Ceremony of the 2006 Commonwealth Games on March 15, 2006. It has appeared on the main page at the time of the Games, and also features on the Commonwealth Games portal. Thanks. Harro5 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. - Harro5 05:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't quite see Delta Goodrem on the picture, where is she? The picture is rather grainy and unsharp. To me it just depicts the backs of a few people, blurry sparks and darkness. --Dschwen 06:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, the subject seems a little vague. It could be anywhere and there is no real focus to the image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't capture the special feeling of the Opening Ceremony -Adrian Pingstone 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - poor quality and composition. -- P199 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Three quarters of the image is lost to darkness. This may be a special and exciting event, but the photo doesnt convey it. --Philopedia 14:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not promoted ~MDD4696 23:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

Hot Air Balloons

Hot air balloons at night

Lovely composition and colours, but needs a good home and the obvious Hot air balloon is already quite well illustrated with at least on existing FP.

• Nominate - Solipsist 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• it's a bit blurry, no? Broken S
• I don't find it blurry at screen resolution, though it is somewhat at full resolution. My only issue with this picture is that it is heavily unbalanced to the left. Denni ☯ 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Looks nice, not too blurry. Hot air balloon has way too many indistinct daytime pictures, and this is more remarkable than all but the FP. I'll try removing some and adding this one.--Zambaretzu 14:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

Eagle Owl

A Eurasian Eagle Owl.

Feature quality and a much better example of a Eurasian Eagle Owl than we currently have. At least I'm fairly sure its an Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo).

Needs:

• Moving to Commons
• Confirmation of identification
• Placing on Eurasian Eagle Owl

• Nominate - Solipsist 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wasn't it already at commons? here? I can't confirm/identify it, sorry. Broken S 23:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. And the Commons caption is good enough for confirming identification. This picture has been on my interesting pictures list for quite a while, but it looks like it has been on Commons for more than a year. Perhaps there was a German version shadowing it when I first found it. -- Solipsist 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)