Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Apr-Jun 2009

WP:PPRA

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.

2012: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2011: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2010: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2009: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2008: January - March | April - June | July - September | October - December
2007: January - June | July - December
2006: January - December

Tram 2548[edit]

A nice shot of a tram in south London

Articles this image appears in

Tramlink

Creator: Sunil060902

Nominated by: Sunil060902 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Apologies for not getting to this - I thought someone else would have done so by now. Anyway, this image has noticeable JPEG artifacts (look around the wires and the text) and barrel distortion. Composition wise, you could lose that cut off shadow on the right. For a replaceable image, FPC reviewers generally expect more. MER-C 07:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pegging[edit]

This is an excellent artistic depiction I found.

Articles this image appears in: Pegging

Creator: the creator of the image, where possible using the format Seedfeeder

Nominated by: Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image was placed on the bad image list. As for the malformed nomination, see bug 16039. MER-C 02:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand? Is it a bad image therefore it should not be nominated? Is that what you say?.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MediaWiki:Bad image list is a way of controlling vandalism involving obscene images - it prevents the use of images except where specifically allowed. MER-C 09:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Splash Column[edit]

It's a clear, high resolution shot without distracting objects or deception.

Articles this image appears in: Splash (fluid mechanics)

Creator: Ardo

Nominated by: Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lighting is reasonable, but the sharpness is lacking. A pencil makes a good focus aid. You may also need to drop your flash power, decreasing the flash burst time and reducing motion blur. I'm also not sure that Splash (fluid mechanics) is the right article ("Splashes are characterized by transient ballistic flow"). The flow is transient, but not significantly ballistic. Surface tension might be useful, but you'd have to think about the caption. Water drop photography is also an option, but you'd have to write the article. I've done a few myself recently, such as File:Water Dolphin.jpg, File:Orange Coronet.jpg and File:Aqua Spout.jpg. One of my radio triggers has broken so I haven't done any more as I am not happy with the lighting. I note that the shutter speed is 5 seconds. Are you using a trigger circuit of some kind? I was thinking about slapping together a photogate, Schmitt trigger and delay circuit for the purpose. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, one other thing, you should upload your images to Commons. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah I used a slow shutter speed and the flash to capture the drop, as I don't have remote triggers quite yet. I have a D60, but I'm using an older flash. A Minolta Auto 118x... The F-stop was low enough that the 5 second exposure (I shortened it on more recent shots, 5 secs is a little unnecessary) didn't capture any light at all, I shot in really low lighting other than the flash. I might need to revise and get some better eqiupment/a better setup before I continue to try these. I've got a few images like the dolphin etc, but like you said, sharpness does lack a little. What do you think of this image? By the way, I'm humbled by your shots, Noodle snacks. Kudos. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On more mundane matters, composition itself would probably be lacking for FPC. I feel that the drop reaches too high in the frame and the ripples are unbalanced being cutoff at left far more than at right. Ideally you'd probably want about as much ripples at right on both sides. For a repeatable shot like this, these things wouldn't be overlooked by many. --jjron (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Red Mountain Pass[edit]

Beautiful shot taken during a drive between Silverton, CO and Ouray, CO. The season is nice; early summer colors with some snow remaining. Slight tone mapping to bring in the clouds.

Articles this image appears in: San_Juan_Skyway Red_Mountain_Pass

Creator: User:eleaf

Nominated by: Eleaf (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very nice photo, but I honestly doubt it is high enough quality to pass at FPC. Size is small (at 1200 x 800 it does meet requirements, but bigger is usually expected for 'landscape' type photos). Sharpness, even at this size, is ordinary - I'm guessing this is taken using the kit lens? And the sky is probably a bit too bright, including some completely blown whites. Overall I don't think it would quite make it, sorry. --jjron (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original file is 10 megapixels. Shot with a 24mm 2.8 prime lens on a 40D. In the original shot, the sky is completely white; I tone mapped the sky down about two stops to compensate, anything more aggressive looked a bit unnatural to me --User:eleaf —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps something's gone bad in the downsizing then, cos I would expect better from that lens/body combination. Could be worth retrying though on another edit. Re the sky, it's just one of those things - you might only be passing through here and basically get one go at the shot, but that may be the wrong time of day/year. If you can't go back at a more congenial time then the photo may be good in general, but people at FPC are unlikely to make exceptions for what are generally considered 'repeatable' photos. --jjron (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions! Eleaf

Seconder

The 1929 Belgian banknote[edit]

High-res version out from approx. 220x134,5 mm, probably one of the finest banknotes in former circulation. Maybe some retouching is needed. The description according to Russian Collection of Materials On Foreign Currency (#8), Moscow, 1932 ("Сборник материалов по иностранной валюте (№8)")

Articles this image appears in: Belgian franc, Mythology

Creator: National Bank of Belgium, uploaded by Brandmeister

Nominated by: brandt 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The inks look very faded. Is that a typical condition of the note or due to a poor scan or something like that? --jjron (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tuned it to compensate for possible fade-out. brandt 13:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if scanning on a dark background would reduce the bleed-through from the reverse. Thegreenj 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether the Museum responds to me again with rescanned image actually. brandt 09:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by brandt. --jjron (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Knob Wind Turbines at Sunset[edit]

This image, which I want to try for featured picture, has to be my best picture of the 10 or so tries of the wind turbines on High Knob. This image, taken on Little Keen Road (Canaan Township Road 456) in Canaan Township, is taken at sunset while walking down the one lane township road. Any comments are welcome :)

Articles this image appears in: Wind turbine, Moosic Mountains, Canaan Township, Wayne County, Pennsylvania

Creator: User:Mitchazenia

Nominated by: 3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The picture itself is OK, but technical qualities are just too low. This is probably a consequence of a combination of the camera used, the conditions it was taken in, the nature of the subject, and too much downsampling. It suffers from excessive noise, substantial artifacting, and lacks any real detail anywhere, in particular on the subject itself (the wind turbines). Sorry, but this won't be an FP any time soon. As a comparison take a good look at the technical standard of this existing wind turbine FP . You could perhaps consider nominating at VPC, but I personally would consider its chances there slim as well. --jjron (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Thalurania blaucopis[edit]

Good technical quality, good detail, beautiful colors, good composition, eye-catching.

Articles this image appears in: Violet-capped_Woodnymph

Creator: Leon-bojarczuk

Nominated by: Tom-b (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Generally agree with points made in nom. However it seems to be a bit overcompressed - this had led to some artifacting, which could be improved with less compression. It also seems a bit soft (lacking typical sharpness of bird FPs) - there could be a few reasons for this. The focus may be just off (for birds you usually look around the eye first, and that doesn't look quite in focus), but DOF also seems shallow despite using F/11 so the lens may not be sharp enough at this zoom perhaps, with another possibility being that the overcompression has also damaged the sharpness, which can also happen. If you could request a less compressed version may be worth a recheck here (if I'm not mistaken your father is the creator), otherwise could be suitable for VPC. Thanks for the nom. --jjron (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm almost certain noise reduction artifacts, not compression. Hopefully the creator has kept the original; this might be salvageable. Thegreenj 03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Scutelleridae[edit]

Eye-catching, good colors, high resolution, good technical quality

I would like to submit it to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, but I don't know how. If someone else deems it suitable, please add it to FPC on my behalf.

Articles this image appears in: Scutelleridae

Creator: Leon-Bojarczuk

Nominated by: Tom-b (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Won't succeed because the species is/are not identified sufficiently. MER-C 08:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hydrogen spectrum[edit]

Clear and simple overview of entire range of the discussed series

Articles this image appears in: Hydrogen spectral series

Creator: OrangeDog

Nominated by: OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No references are provided. Diagrams like this need to conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability. That would be your next step in the process. --jjron (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram follows referenced equation in Rydberg formula and Hydrogen spectral series. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth adding an actual ref to the image page, not just the equation. Beyond that I'm not entirely sure what to make of this in terms of FPC. Without doing the calculations I'll assume it's accurate and informative. On the other hand I'm not sure there's enough info provided in the caption/image page/article. For example what is Ly-α? OK, so it's the alpha line of the Lyman series, but how am I supposed to know this, and why is it significant enough to be labelled? It's briefly discussed elsewhere in the article, but isn't that clear on the diagram. It's also unclear why some of the spectral lines are quite wide, and the wider ones seem to fade off in a gradient - perhaps where higher value lines merge at this scale, but what's with the gradient, and again, how are we supposed to know? Also I think your scale should be a different colour from any of the series (the scale and Balmer series are both black). I'm nitpicking, but that will happen at FPC, especially for a relatively simple diagram. I wouldn't say not to nominate, but couldn't really say how it would go. --jjron (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Faceoff[edit]

Series of photos showing Louie Caporusso winning a faceoff

As a set these are valuable images. I am wondering if there is any way to credit them as a valuable set or series

Creator: Greg Sommers (flickr user Greg-ography) uploaded to commons by TonyTheTiger

Nominated by: TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not particularly taken on the idea of this as a featured set. Personally I don't feel 'the set' is that much more informative than a single image, and all possibly have some issues. Sets are not a very popular concept either. Perhaps you could suggest which one of the three you think to be the best of the lot and go from there. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really curious in learing about the possibilities of a set. I am not really interested in any single one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally I wouldn't support the set, but if you want to try just create a standard nom like you have here, and say that you're nominating as a set. --jjron (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Mt Uluguru and Sisal plantations[edit]

Would like feedback for FPC nom.

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 20:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is this a stitched image? Most of the left side of the image has really weird problems - probably loss of detail due to JPEG artifacts. MER-C 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No its a crop of a single image. I can upload a less compressed version --Muhammad(talk) 09:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree there looks to be something odd with the tree down that left side, but given the res and filesize, wouldn't have thought there would have been any serious compression problems. Hmmm... --jjron (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, re the picture itself, it's a very nice photo aesthetically, but at the moment I'm not overly sold on EV. Is the sisal just those biggish grey-green plants or does the plantation extend on behind. If it is just those plants I'm not really sure it's much of a plantation, and if not, why are the plants behind such a different colour? --jjron (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There were a few rows of sisal and then some other plants and then some sisal again. --Muhammad(talk) 12:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Muhammad. --jjron (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Lima Flight Team[edit]

This is a Wikimedia quality image that I added to the Lima Lima Flight Team page. I have not nominated an image for Featured Image on Wikipedia. If this looks like a candidate for Featured Image I am asking that it be nominated. Hopefully I will learn how to enter a nomination on my own. Thank You.

Creator: JMSchneid

Nominated by: JMSchneid (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like the photo and quality looks good. The biggest problem I can see is that it looks a bit too cramped vertically. In particular I really wish that bottom plane wasn't there, it would look so much stronger if that was open space. For that reason I wouldn't second it at this stage, but also wouldn't say not to nominate. Would like to hear some other opinions, as my main objection is the rather subjective 'composition' matter. (BTW, you may like to lose the © symbol from your author name. And if no one comments by the time I come to archive this, I will probably nominate it just to see how it goes.) --jjron (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by me. --jjron (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana[edit]

High resolution, highly encyclopaedic, public domain due to age.

Creator: Sahibdin (17th century), uploader Nvineeth

Nominated by: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs cleanup and scratch removal. I'd be concerned about JPEG artifacts at that level of compression. You might be able to get a higher resoultion image if you scrape it from the zoomify flash thing using the procedure outlined here. MER-C 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Parviz Davoodi[edit]

Good quality and EV. The article lacked any pictures. Is it a worthy candidate?

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I doubt it. Even at its pretty small size it's really quite unsharp. Also looks a little overexposed perhaps, but I think that could be fixed. There's nothing that striking about composition either, say, to compensate for the flaws. As a comparison, have a look at the one politician photo I have contributed. Quality is probably something similar, but I wouldn't consider nominating mine; granted yours would probably be considered higher EV due to his actual position of power, but it's not FP quality. Maybe some chance at VP. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some other pictures with different composition. I will probably upload them later and list them here. A quick question; some of the pictures has the security guy being seen in the background, the politician is sharp and perfectly in focus but the guard has his head cut off. Would this be worth nominating? --Muhammad(talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard to say without seeing them, but I think that may impact on its chances. It may depend on how far in the background he is and how in focus he is; i.e., is he part of the scene or part of the background. --jjron (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have uploaded 3 images. They are not sharpened or NR, just downsampled. Composition good of any? Or is it just VP this time --Muhammad(talk) 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Honest opinion - none of them do it for me. That security guy is quite prominent when he's there. I think your original assessment was correct in that the first one you put up was the best, but I've commented on that above. Just up to you what you want to do with them - I could be wrong of course! --jjron (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1
2
3

Seconder

Lynn Bari and Edward G. Robinson[edit]

Though of comparatively low resolution, I think this is a compelling and well-composed image, and I am considering nominating it at WP:VPC

Creator: Photographer uncredited, uploaded by Mutter Erde

Nominated by: Skomorokh 11:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a pretty nice photo. I'll let others determine whether the licensing is legit (not my area of expertise or interest). Personally I'd probably crop the border off before nominating, but I think worth a try at VPC - the resolution is not an issue there. BTW, it was only in Edward G. Robinson, but I note there's an awkwardly cropped version of this in Lynn Bari, which I think this one should replace. And I quickly created an article for the film - see Tampico (1944 film) - which significantly ups the EV, a VPC requirement. Mind you it must be in an article for at least a month, not sure how long it's been in Robinson, but you may need to wait for the time limit before nominating. --jjron (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Denver International Airport[edit]

Very high resolution, even image throughout the picture and represents the current layout.

Creator: MBisanz

Nominated by: MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

FWIW this version is in the article. It's unmanageably big for me, and with nothing on it labelled or identified I don't know about the EV. With the colouring etc, nothing especially strikes about it. On the other hand, being so big may be enough to impress some people. --jjron (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Joseph Leidy[edit]

portrait of a good quality

Creator: unknown, published by Henry Cadwalader Chapman (1845-1909)

Nominated by: Snek01 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's pretty scratchy and speckled. I suspect a lot of voters would be calling for a restoration, especially at FPC. Also very small DOF. I'm also not really taken by the left side of his face - from his nose, across his left cheek, up into his eye socket and his hair all just seem to bleed into each other. I'd doubt it's chances at FPC without a restoration, but perhaps VPC? --jjron (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

ANZAC Day Dawn service[edit]

The image is of ANZAC day the dawn service
used in ANZAC Day,

Creator: Gnangarra

Nominated by: Gnan garra 02:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very noisy even at small sizes; wouldn't have a chance at FPC for this reason, but maybe VPC, though I'm not that convinced. Just a note on composition - I think it would be worth trying a crop at the right to centre the image on the memorial, as it looks unbalanced atm. Possibly also try cropping at the bottom - take out that distracting fence, and get rid of at least that centre blurry close-up head and possibly all three of them. --jjron (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Old panorama of Beirut[edit]

It's a picture which emphasizes both the history of the city and the early use of panoramic photography.

Creator: Maison Bonfils

Nominated by: Banzoo (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

On the LOC source, there's only two frames. Where did the third frame come from? MER-C 05:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just added the source to the picture information: the third frame source is from [1] --Banzoo (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Jamaica Bay Canada Goose[edit]

I think this would be a suitable featured picture because of the cropping that eliminates all but the subject, the extreme detail and sharpness, and the colors are well balanced and it illustrates the article nicely. The description is also in multiple languages, therefore is able to describe the photograph to a wider demographic of languages and ethnicities. The water coming out of it's nose is kind of funny too.

Creator: Bettycrocker

Nominated by: Bettycrocker (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Tagged as copyvio, all images uploaded to Commons must allow unrestricted modification. MER-C 04:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Cyclohexane chair structure[edit]

A cyclohexane molecule in the *chair* conformation. Axial hydrogen are shown as red while orbital hydrogen are blue.

A very simple picture, but very large and very clear, it adds immensely to the value of its article, so I'd like to nominate it for Valued Picture

Creator: Benjah-bmm27

Nominated by: Pstanton (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can't really comment on this because I already am familiar with the subject, but 1) this should really be SVG and 2) you should explain what the black stuff (carbon, bonds) are in the caption. Would support at VPC if these are met. MER-C 08:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar, India.jpg[edit]

This picture of mine has just been featured on Commons, I'm wondering now if it has enough EV to be featured on Wikipedia?

Creator: Paulrudd

Nominated by: Alllexxxis (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support Very nice picture, the only additional recommendations I have would to get it into more articles, and the name should perhaps be a bit shorter, I suggest renaming it to something like "Sikh pilgrim at the Golden Temple, India." Move the information about it being called "Harmandir Sahib" and being in Amritsar to the picture description page, it doesn't need to be in the file name. Asides from that, a very nice picture I think. --Pstanton (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but how do i change the name of the file? re-upload it with a new name? --Alllexxxis (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then tag the old one with commons:Template:Bad name. MER-C 01:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Definitely worth a go at FPC. Wouldn't worry about renaming, the current name is fine. Surely could also be placed at Harmandir Sahib at least, but that is probably enough. (BTW, some people may grumble about them, but I like those guys crawling around on the roof of the temple, and trying to figure out what they are doing). --jjron (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah it's a funny detail, my guess is that they're cleaning/"regolding" it --Alllexxxis (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Falls[edit]

Adds immeasurably to its article, is very high resolution. Shows a high level of outflow against a white background of snow which emphasizes the red which is caused by levels of ferric oxide or rust in the water. Note the tent in the lower left, which shows scale. I think this is a perfect example of what a featured picture should be. Technically excellent, interesting and relevant to it's article.

Creator: Peter Rejcek

Nominated by: Pstanton (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very cool image; no question. Not up to FP standards, but a VPC nom would probably treat you well. Might want to crop the thing in the left foreground out. Cropping won't lose any of the red water flow either, so I would suggest it. Very interesting. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but I'd like to point out that the thing in the left foreground was actually included intentionally, I believe, it is a tent that is being used to indicate the scale of the Blood Falls, and therefore has informative value to the picture. --Pstanton (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. I didn't read the caption on the image page. You should probably make that the caption when nominating so that's clear. Definitely don't crop it. I still think it would only pass at VPC though. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The natural phenomenon captured on this picture is very rare and of high scientific value as illustrated by two papers published in Science on April-17-2009 on the presence of extremophile micro-organisms living in the cold of Antarctica and in hypersaline waters concentrated below a glacier and isolated from the antarctic ocean for millions of years:
- Grom, J. (2009-04-16). "Ancient ecosystem discovered beneath antarctic glacier". ScienceNOW Daily News. Retrieved 2009-04-17., and;
- Mikucki, Jill A.; Ann Pearson; David T. Johnston; Alexandra V. Turchyn; James Farquhar; Daniel P. Schrag; Ariel D. Anbar; John C. Priscu; Peter A. Lee (2009). "A contemporary microbially maintained subglacial ferrous "ocean"". Science. 324 (5925): 397–400. doi:10.1126/science.1167350. Retrieved 2009-04-17.

The figure is very expressive and of high quality. For all these reasons, I think it certainly deserves to be a Featured Picture. Shinkolobwe (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nice picture of an interesting (and unusual) place. -- Xofc (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

--Pstanton (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S-61 Fire King refueling[edit]

A Carson Helicopters S-61N Fire King being fueled during firefighting operations in Southern River, Western Australia

The image is a panorama of the fueling operations it offers an insight into how these craft are able to remain at the scene of a fire for extended periods along with the precautions that are necessary when fueling. Used in Aviation fuel#Safety precautions and Carson Helicopters could also be used in S-61N or Aerial firefighting which has an abundance of action images but no support service images.

Creator: Gnangarra

Nominated by: Gnan garra 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Stitching issue will be corrected soon? Durova^Charge! 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gnangarra 01:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apart from the light coming from the wrong side, I quite like this. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well this isnt a studio shot where all the elements can be controlled, nor is it a landscape where one can wait all day. Its a photograph of an real life event where all the compositional elements come together for a very limited time and are not repeated. Gnan garra 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Looks pretty good, I think it's worth a try. There's something funny in the sky, perhaps a blurry bird, about halfway across the image (just above where the rotor blades end) - probably worth cloning that out first. The blurred grass in front of the truck is also a little unfortunate, but you probably can't do much about that. Give it a shot. --jjron (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at FPC by Gnangarra. --jjron (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iris plant 2[edit]

As I said before I've not considered nomination yet, just want someone to comment on the general quality. --Ahnode (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Ahnode (talk)

Nominated by: Ahnode (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is really under-exposed. Set your camera's exposure compensation higher (at least a stop). Look at the histogram to determine the right exposure. I'd also consider brushing some of the surrounding grass out of the way. The background is distracting despite the f5.6 aperture. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll practice more, thanks once again. --Ahnode (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also required that the image should be included in atleast one article. Zoo Fari 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Iris plant[edit]

I haven't thought about nominating yet, but I'd like to get some feedback on the quality, composition or anything other that my photographer skills could benefit from.

Creator: Ahnode (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Ahnode (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is also underexposed. I get the impression that it is sitting in direct sunlight. Use something to shade the plant in order to get more pleasing, soft, light. The shutter speed is the same on this one, so I think you might have had your camera in manual. Aperture priority (Av on the dial) at f5.6-8.0 is the way to go. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! That's a handy advice! --Ahnode (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get a definitive species ID if possible before nomination. Same with the other one. MER-C 13:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like this one better then the above image, and I also think it is a little underexposed. I think the picture is generally dark, was it cloudy that day? --Pstanton (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Teddy bear[edit]

I think this would be a suitable featured picture because it makes readers want to read the toy article.

Creator: I'm so bored

Nominated by: Academiic (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The suggestive pose of the teddy is hilarious. I would oppose this on lighting grounds. Direct flash isn't particularly flattering. Try placing the subject near a window on an overcast day. The background is also a bit distracting. File:Teddy bear 27.jpg may give you some ideas. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The picture, while cute, is simply not an appropriate quality for a featured image. Additionally, User:I'm so bored is a known sock of User:Jessica Liao, and I suspect that User:Academiic may be Jessica Liao as well. Editors responding to this proposal may want to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Random account 39949472. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Rainbow Runners[edit]

It's high resolution, got great colours and is a great illustration for this type of fish.

Creator: Taro Taylor

Nominated by: ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your nomination, but unlikely to have much success on several grounds. For starters most people at FPC tend to like their animals alive rather than dead, unless it was illustrating them being dead for some reason. Also there's not a single fish anywhere near the focus that is complete, and it appears overexposed, including some completely blown out blocks of white (consider that biggest fish at the top, and look on its body right near the top of the photo). --jjron (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Tibetan equestrian[edit]

Bright, happy. Showing the fact that horse riding is an essential means of transportation in parts of the world where the landscape doesn't permit modern transportation or technology development is lacking, motivating children to learn the skills of equestrianism at early age.

Creator: Mikael Häggström

Nominated by: Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unfortunately it's a little too bright and happy for FP - the image is oversaturated. The original is more realistic but you've shot into the sun and underexposed the child. I'd try a selective shadow recovery on the original. MER-C 08:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the light angle could be better, so in any case it would need some manipulation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person in the photo should accept the public appearance as well. Generally children appearances are rare and disputed. Zoo Fari 02:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, to make this a FP, I first need to go back to Himalaya, find that boy and make him consent to its use. Maybe another time... Still, I assume the current use (in one article) doesn't bother him. After all, it was almost four years ago since I took the picture, and he probably look different today. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sprout Creek[edit]

Good encyclopedic value, visually appealing

Creator: Own work

Nominated by: –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

From a technical view point:

There's some really weird distortion - have a look at that power pole on the left. (It isn't just that - there are also a number of other places where it is obvious).
The sky is blown.
Significant chromatic aberration on the trees

Won't succeed at FPC for these reasons. I'd try it at VPC, but you might get opposed for the distortion. MER-C 02:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Andrew Carnegie in front of Rays Hill Tunnel[edit]

I don't know if we have a railroad image yet at Featured Pictures, and this one is certainly an original. With the historic image I have here, I am looking for help on getting this for FPC.

Creator: Scanned, cropped and edited by User:Mitchazenia. Original photographer is not available.

Nominated by: Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 22:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You're going to want a significant refurbishment of this. Scratches and dust everywhere. What looks to be creases in the top center. There are a few people at FPC that do this kind of work. Not to say they'd do it, but Durova, Shoemaker's Holiday, and Mvuijlst are three of the more notable restorationists (that I've taken notice of). Best, ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Edit 1.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 17:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to work on the image, but to do that I'd need a higher quality original: this has a lot of articasts due to jpeg compression. If you could upload this in tiff (or png) format: I'm your man. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a scan of the original image, I can try as soon as possible.Mitchazenia : Chat Trained for the pen 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 does indeed look better, but it still needs more restoration to be good for FPC. For instance, see the tunnel. That should be black without the dust, scratches, and smudges. As long as your upload is up to scratch size-wise, it seems Michel Vuijsteke will do it for you. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

EMPAC at night[edit]

Nighttime panorama of EMPAC (1)

Nighttime panorama of EMPAC (2)

Nighttime single shot of EMPAC (3)

Looking for some reviews on how these came out. This is my first nighttime pano effort and I'd like to know what I did right and what I did wrong for the three images. This is my first effort in using my camera in manual mode, and at night. Aperture set to around f5 for each image, exposure time set to 5 seconds. Any suggestions? Better combination? I'm still working on getting to know the impact of f-number and exposure length combination. Any comments would be helpful. Summer's coming and I want to be prepared to take quality images, not just get lucky. :-)

Creator: Wadester16

Nominated by: ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As far as Wiki is concerned I'm not a big fan of night-time shots of this type of thing for EV reasons - you just can't see as much. Like I think your day time images of this place are far more informative (even though they had their own issues as commented on at the VPC nom). For example in these it's very hard to distinguish the top of the building, it's just too dark, and you totally lose any sense of the mirrored glass effect. They can have their place, but I generally prefer day-lit photos, especially at FPC. Diliff often does his for example more at twilight than at night. The photos themselves looks OK to me, but I'm no night shooting expert - of course there's issues with blown lights and that type of thing, which will nearly always be an issue. It comes up quite different in the pano to the one-shot, perhaps just due to less perspective distortion. Perhaps it would be worth specifically requesting some input from Diliff, I don't think he really looks at PPR, but if you asked him he may be willing to give some more thorough advice. --jjron (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why I never thought of doing it at twilight... duh. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've probably already seen this but the Blue hour and Golden hour (photography) articles may provide a few tips --Muhammad(talk) 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder