Jump to content

Wikipedia:Picture peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mstroeck (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 8 February 2006 (→Suggestions for [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured picture tools
Shortcut

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. 

===[[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.

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?

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Seconder:


Crepuscular Ray Sunset

  • Exposure Bracket
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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!

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

Comments:


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:

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)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review&oldid=38717662"