Wikipedia:Picture peer review: Difference between revisions
→Suggestions for FPC: add |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Suggestions for [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates|FPC]]== |
==Suggestions for [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates|FPC]]== |
||
<!-- ↓ NEW SUBMISSIONS GO BELOW THIS LINE! MOST RECENT AT TOP PLEASE. ↓ --> |
<!-- ↓ NEW SUBMISSIONS GO BELOW THIS LINE! MOST RECENT AT TOP PLEASE. ↓ --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Emperor Penguin Leap}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Gilbert Strang}} |
{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Gilbert Strang}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Colonial Flagellate Theory}} |
{{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Colonial Flagellate Theory}} |
||
Revision as of 17:23, 5 June 2012
|
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?
|
Featured picture tools: |
Suggestions for FPC
Found this image and uploaded, to me looks crisp and like it could be a good FP, certainly not an easy shot to reproduce as not many of us are going to be able to go to the South Pole anytime soon. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Emperor Penguin
- Creator
- Dr. Paul Ponganis of the National Science Foundation
- Suggested by
- Mifter (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- It's a good image, but I question the EV, it's really buried down in the article that is already over-illustrated, and it's not really showing remarkable behavior or clearly showing the animal, the infobox image is one that if it was higher resolution and a little better framed would make an excellent FP, but I have my doubts on this image due to the EV. — raekyt 15:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
This high quality photograph of academic Gilbert Strang was apparently taken by Wikipedia user Sijothankam, and seems like a potential candidate to become a featured picture to me (somewhat tight crop at the top, admittedly). Any other reason why it shouldn't be listed at FPC?
- Articles this image appears in
- Gilbert Strang
- Creator
- Sijothankam
- Suggested by
- A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Quality seems quite good, lighting seems okay, some minor artifacting in the background, but I don't think it's a big issue. Focus is good and pretty much in the right spot, but it's a very shallow DOF, which some voters dislike in portraits. Tight crop as you suggest could be an issue. The other concern I'd have is that it seems a strange pose, in particular how he's holding his mouth. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay... Thanks very much for the feedback! Is it probably not really worth running at FLC then? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say a definite 'no' as voting can be fickle at times and this does have some strong points, while some of the weaknesses are as much a matter of opinion as anything. I'd say if you want to give it a try at FPC go ahead, without expecting too much. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, no harm in trying, I suppose. I'll inform the creator. Thanks very much for the advice! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
This a high quality diagram which clearly illustrates a leading hypothesis for the mechanism for the evolution of multicellular organism.
- Articles this image appears in
- Multicellular organism
- Creator
- Katelynp1
- Suggested by
- Earthdirt (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- These type of images are basically expected to be in SVG format these days, this is PNG. Additionally it would need to be referenced to a reliable source/s on the image page. Article use isn't great - no caption, and wording does not particularly match the section of the article it's in. If those things could all be addressed for starters, we could maybe look again. --jjron (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
The puppet shown is Muppet-style, and thus what many readers would expect to see in the article, due to familiarity. Most, if not all of the other articles, are either in a puppet theatre, a television studio, or of a street performer; Bleeckie is in a real life scenario, a style popularized by feature film puppetry. Technically, the image is crisp and high-res. Not only this but rod puppets can also made using different scenarios using different characters.
- Articles this image appears in
- Puppet
- Creator
- Leslie Madeline Fleming
- Suggested by
- Zanimum (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Sorry, would stand no chance at FPC. Low res (check FP criteria - minimum is 1000px), low quality image (only 94kb indicates a lot of downsampling). Even if you had a good version of this I doubt it'd have much chance, with the puppet being so cut off, and given that we can see the photographer reflected in the white background it rather spoils it (and I was sure I've seen this nommed somewhere before, but maybe it was something similar). --jjron (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
This image was nominated as a featured picture at Commons and, frustratingly, I was never told of the nomination. As you can see, it was a fairly damning set of opposes, though most of them fair. I've now reprocessed the images from RAW and restitched. I believe all of the stitching errors are fixed. I think I've fixed the white balance (presumably what was meant by "poor colours"). I'm assuming that the poor crop was in regards to the very tip of the antenna being cut off; is this really such a big problem? Finally, there are indeed about three small areas where the focus is off, but I think you have to be pixel peeping in order to see them, and it only means it's not quite as sharp as the rest. I think a lot of images look like those soft areas at even less resolution and still manage to pass somehow. But I'd rather have your opinions: should I give up on this one and never bother with a nomination? Julia\talk 09:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Saint George Palace
- Creator
- Julia W
- Suggested by
- Julia\talk 09:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Seconder
Picture Peer Review Archives
Picture Peer Review Archives Mainpage
|
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.
|
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.