Jump to content

Wikipedia:Picture peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ganeshrg (talk | contribs) at 06:49, 7 April 2010 (→Suggestions for FPC and VPC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is about Wikipedia's picture reviews. For the portal reviews page, see WP:Portal peer review.

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

Featured content:

Featured picture tools:

Suggestions for FPC and VPC

Meteorite crater at Lonar

Original - 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

Original - Valluvar Kottam at Chennai, India is a memorial dedicated to the Tamil poet Tiruvalluvar.

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

Original - A picture of a Balsamorhiza deltoidea taken at Dog Mountain, Washington. In the center, pollen can be seen.

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
Seconder


Mountain in Carbon County, Utah

Original - A mountain formation 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


Topaz Gems

Original - cut Topaz gemstones

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
Seconder


Cacatua galerita

Original - Close-up of a Sulphur crested cockatoo

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

Original - The Jewry Wall and St Nicholas' Church in Leicester, England. The wall is the second largest piece of surviving civil Roman building in Britain, and is both a Scheduled Monument and a Grade I listed building. Originally it separated the Palaestra from the Frigidarium at Ratae Corieltauvorum's baths. St Nicholas' Church is also Grade I listed, and dates from AD 880.

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
Seconder


1 Ilica Street

Original - 1 Ilica Street in Zagreb, Croatia; Completed in 1958 and billed as the "first bonafide skyscraper in Yugoslavia".

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

Original - STS-130 night launch

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
Seconder


Preserved tumulus in Denmark

Original - Tinghøjen, one of about 26,000 conserved tumuli in Denmark, located between Randers and Viborg. Such tumuli are a characteristic of the Danish landscape, where they pop up as protected islands in agricultural fields. A Danish law of nature conservation from 1937 (Naturfredningsloven), preserved 16,000 historic sites of which most were tumuli, Tinghøjen being one of those. Photo from January, 2010.

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

Original - A panoramic image showing the town of Burnley from Crown point road. To the far top left of the image is the imposing Pendle Hill, with the Yorkshire Dales visible in the top central background. In the left of the image shows the town centre of Burnley and Turf Moor can be seen in the very centre of the picture. To the right the areas of Brunshaw and Pike Hill can be seen.

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
Seconder
Conclusion

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

Singing Ringing Tree

Original - An image showing one of the 4 Mid Pennine Arts Panopticons. This, Singing Ringing Tree, is a wind powered sound sculpture designed by architects Mike Tonkin and Anna Liu of Tonkin Liu.

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
  • 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]
Seconder


Olduvai Gorge

Original - Olduvai Gorge is a famous archeological site in the Great Rift Valley

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]
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
Seconder


Western Face of Thwaites Scars

Original - Panoramic image of the western face of Thwaites scars, taken from Long Lane

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]
  • 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


Anna Chakvetadze

Original - Portrait of Anna Chakvetadze
Alternative - Anna Chakvetadze at the 2009 Rome Masters; same creator

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


Menai Suspension Bridge

Original - The Menai Suspension Bridge, built in 1826 across the Menai Straits between the island of Anglesey and the mainland of Wales, was designed by Thomas Telford.

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
BencherliteTalk 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. BencherliteTalk 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

Original - Cannabis (Cannabis sativa), illustration by Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
Cannabis (Cannabis sativa), illustration by Otto Wilhelm Thomé, 1885
Cannabis (Cannabis sativa), illustration by W. Müller from Franz Eugen Köhler's Medizinal-Pflantzen, 1887

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
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

Original - The Olympic Stadium (French: Stade olympique) is a multi-purpose stadium in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve district of Montreal, Quebec, Canada built as the main venue for the 1976 Summer Olympics.

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


Warm Springs Indians

Original - Native American women from the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs with beaded bags. Wasco County, Oregon, c. 1902

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
Conclusion


Waterfall near Mallwyd, Gwynedd.

Original - Waterfalls near Mallwyd, Wales

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

Original - Edible seaweed farming in Nusa Lembongan, Bali, Indonesia (photo 2009)

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


Picture Peer Review Archives

Picture Peer Review Archives Mainpage

Shortcut

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review&oldid=354480172"