Wikipedia:Picture peer review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:16, 3 May 2006

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.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:PPR]]

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Instructions

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

Review Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? to make sure the image is up to standards.
1. If you think your picture may not meet standards add it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for review.
Create a new subpage named Wikipedia:Picture peer review/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:''' *  <br style="clear:both;" />

Add {{Wikipedia:Picture peer review/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.

Scottish Parliament Committee Room Ceiling

Displays Enric Miralles and Bernadette Tagliabue's command over form to create almost painter like compositions; appears in Scottish Parliament Building, Self created.

Nominate and support. - Mcginnly 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I don't think this would make it, too much noise, a little blurry and the window has blown out highlights. I also cant tell what the main subject is. -Ravedave 14:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it was a very grey, dark day in Scotland, trouble is, this is one of the rooms in the parliament which is not publicly accessible and so rephotographing it is going to be problematic for me. Do you have any advice on how i might be able to improve it in photoshop? The blown out highlights of the window I quite like though as this is supposed to be a dramatic image of the interplay of light on form. As to what the subject is - it's a mad sculptural ceiling in the scottish parliament, it's not a familiar shape. The things hanging from the ceiling are lighting cans and cameras. I was including it to try demonstrate a clever grasp of compostion that the architect has managed, by being easily able to capture a balanced 2d composition from a real life structural form. --Mcginnly 14:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dont think you can fix it with pshp. When overexposed you loose infromation. You could try submitting it as an FPC on commons, they usually go for more artsy type stuff where as FPC on wikipedia is more for stuff that is encyclopedic. -Ravedave 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the subject isn't particularly interesting as far as I can tell - some modern lights hanging from a white ceiling? And the photography, while adequate, is not "stunning". I think it would be very difficult to take a particularly nice photo of a monochromatic 3d shape. Sadly :/ Stevage 09:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali

I took this photograph on December 2005 of the Sidi Saiyaad Ni Jaali at Sidi Saiyaad masjid in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. It appears in the English Wikipedia for Ahmedabad as well as the Gujarati Wikipedia for Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali and Ahmedabad. I would like to eventually nominate it for featured image of the day and seek your input before doing so.

Nominate and support. - L1CENSET0K1LL 02:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is ths stone??? Awesome! Renata 07:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive. Great resolution. A little blurry, but I think it's of sufficiant quality to try for a FP. --Pharaoh Hound 14:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For such an intricate subject, the quality and focusing is crucial. But this picture is slightly out of focus, and might be critisized for that. If it's possible, retake the picture in the same way, but make sure it's in focus; then I think you'd have a FP. --Tewy 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg Tun

File:HeidelbergTun-edit1.jpg

The Heidelberg Tun edited to remove various blemishes

I took the photo, it appears in the Heidelberg Tun. It's probably not good enough for FPC, but I'm very keen to one day get a FP, so I'd appreciate any comments on what's good, bad etc about it.

For myself:

Good: lighting (I have another version taken with flash, much less good), people's heads show the scale of the barrel, but are blurred enough not to be distracting or identifying). Subject is at least relatively interesting.
Bad: Can only see half the barrel (there was a wall to the left), motion blur of people's heads is possibly excessive? Also image is more cropped up the top than I would have really liked. Light in top right is bright, but could probably be photoshopped?

For comparison, a "professional" photo of it [1].

Ok I had a crack at photoshopping it. A bit amateurish... Stevage 15:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not nominating just yet. :)

Comments: (be as harsh as you like, I have thick skin)

I've never been to Heidelberg, so this may sound like a dumb question, but would it have been possible to photograph the entire barrel (or at least more of it)? The framing seems cramped, but I don't know what the space is like there. Mooveeguy 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a wall immediately to the left of shot, and yeah, the area is quite cramped (it's under a medieval castle after all). With a ladder and tripod you could probably get a better result. Oh, also I was hampered because I had to lean the photo on the right hand wall to get enough stability for the long exposure time (0.25s). Stevage 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good subject to photograph, and a worthy contribution to the encyclopedia. Yours is much better than the 'professional' example of course, but in my experience of FPC it would need a few more improvements still before it could pass. They are essentially the same points you've raised yourself:

The main subject is cut off: the whole of the barrel front should ideally be visible
The lighting would have to be more even. No flash was a good idea, but too much of the barrel is in shadow and the contrast between the lit area and the darker areas is too high
The people are distracting. Something to give an idea of scale is good, but if it's going to be a person it should look like the person is meant to part of the picture. He or she should be in focus, interacting relevantly with the subject, and should not be cut
The edit looks a bit too saturated on my monitor, and the editing out of the people would be controversial. Many pictures have been opposed in recent months for having had unwanted elements photoshopped out: this isn't officially a criterion and isn't likely to become one (because of a lack of consensus in the various discussions), but there are members of the community who feel strongly about it and will vote accordingly

I do like the picture, but we've enjoyed an extremely high standard of nominations for indoor architecture and monuments recently! I hope you don't think I'm giving you too tall an order: these are simply the negatives I believe would be mentioned if this were nominated ~ Veledan • Talk 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I really appreciate the comments - hadn't thought of the variation in shadow. Probably couldn't have done much about that one, the lighting in there was, well, ordinary. With a bit of effort I could have got the people out of the way, but not sure what to put there to show scale. Anyway, I'll keep trying on other subjects :) Stevage 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject, however to get a good encyclopedic pic you need to show how large it is, the only way I can think of doing that is to have a person in front of it standing up, however that makes it look un-encyclopedic. I dunno how to fix that :) -Ravedave 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a tricky one :) Stevage 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder:

Hermit Crabs

These 4 Hermit Crabs were seen perched on top of a piece of coral in a Salt Water Aquarium. The tank was dark and a flash artifact is seen off the back wall of the tank. This could be edited out in some way however. The image was taken by myself through the glass of a Salt Water Aquarium in San Antonio, Texas. I am not an expert on Hermit Crabs, just happened to be observing this tank and taking some pictures with a new camera to check out it's capabilities. I am guessing this is simply a playful balancing act or some kind of mating ritual. Any ideas from the community? This image appears in the article Hermit Crab.

Nominate and support. - Drcbc 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This image has no source or copyright information and has had a notice on it since 7 April. It's not in an article either, all these are required for a featured picture candidate.--Dakota ~ ° 00:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you, I am new to this and I think I have now added the source, licensing information and it is now in the Hermit Crab article.Drcbc13:28 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This is the first edit. I have added a background to cover the flash artifact off the back glass of the aquarium.Drcbc14:28 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The background and colors seem dreary for a FP (which isn't your fault, just what was there, I guess). I'd rather see a low shot of a hermit crab crawling along the beach, with a nice blue sky in the background. But that's just my opinion, which won't count for much until I start uploading pics myself. Mooveeguy 18:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel that one of the best characteristics of the picture was that the nondescript background focused the viewer on a sharp, well framed rather unusual grouping of Hermit Crabs perched precariously on top of a piece of coral. A busy,colorful background might easily distract the viewer from the central subject. Drcbc21:00 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is a quite decent picture, but when shrunk to thumbnail size it's perhaps a little busy (there's a lot of hermit crabs rather than just one) and not contrasty enough to figure out what's going on. Thumbnail pics work best when they are very simply composed IMHO. --Robert Merkel 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I remember about hermit crabs, I think there is often quite a bit of competition for the 'best' shell, or at least the best fit. A group of hermits will tend to swap shells periodically so if one of these is a recent arrival or has found a new shell, his companions may be trying to persuade him to swap. I think they can also detect when a female is 'in heat' and may cluster around her tapping her shell to encourage her to mate. I make no guarantees about the accuracy of that lot, it's just from memory ;) Yummifruitbat 22:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Cauldron Park

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)[reply]

Comments:

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

Seconder:

Great Gallery

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Comment. I made an edit attempt as well. I would support this image for FP nomination. -- moondigger 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dubrovnik, Croatia

File:Dubrovnik (near), Croatia.jpg

A view of Dubrovnik from the south

File:Dubrovnik edit.jpg

Original image retouched by Alexander VII.

I thought that this image, with minor touch-ups, could be a potential candidate for featured picture. The exposure and compostition look to be very good as it is, in my opinion; Picture can be found in the Dubrovnik article. Image was uploaded by Neoneo13.

Nominate and support. - Alexander VII 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Seconder:

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.

Les Arcs

taken by Stevage. It was taken in the French ski resort Les Arcs, but I don't think it shows much of the actual ski resort. Ideas? :) Stevage 09:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Les Arcs wouldn't work? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am dum. Thanks. :) Stevage 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery fish

File:P1010238 crop1.jpg

taken by Yummifruitbat.

I spotted this little character on a visit to Vancouver Aquarium, B.C. but omitted to check the display to find out what species (s)he is. If anyone can identify him (even vaguely) I could set about finding appropriate articles for him to illustrate. Thanks! :) Yummifruitbat 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a goby to me. There are many, many species, and I don't know which one this is. --Ginkgo100 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 56: / Line 56: @@
 [[Image:Dubrovnik (near), Croatia.jpg|thumb|200px|A view of '''Dubrovnik''' from the south]]
+[[Image:Dubrovnik edit.jpg|thumb|200px|Original image retouched by [[user:Alexander VII|Alexander VII]].]]
 I thought that this image, with minor touch-ups, could be a potential candidate for featured picture. The exposure and compostition look to be very good as it is, in my opinion;