Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jul-Sep 2010

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

Red Arrow Squad[edit]

I think the clouds and the focus of the shot makes the picture stand out. The darker clouds to the right is very fortunate because it makes the Red Arrows clearer.

Articles this image appears in: Red Arrows

Creator: Jaguar

Suggested by: Jaguar (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The planes are very small with little visible detail. Lighting isn't ideal. A higher-quality version of File:RedArrows01.jpg is the type of shot that would have a chance at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nintendo DSi printed circuit boards[edit]

Having previously worked with video game articles, I don't recall seeing such a quality image of a gaming console's motherboard on Wiki, so I'm requesting input on this one to see how well it will do.

Articles this image appears in: Nintendo DSi

Creator: Micah Elizabeth Scott

Suggested by: « ₣M₣ » 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Seconder

I'd be rooting for this, the quality seems to be there and it would be a rare type of nom. If the EV is high enough I think it could pass. --I'ḏ ♥One 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'd pass. Way too many scratches and too much dust etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looks like a lot of tech to me :P ResMar 03:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Watts face close-up[edit]

**Original** - Naomi Watts at the London Film Festival for the Eastern Promises premiere

Certainly one of the most beautiful portraits I have ever seen. It really impressed me, so I'd just like to know whether it is good enough to meet the criteria or not.

Articles this image appears in: Cinema of Australia, Naomi Watts, English Australian

Creator: Caroline Bonarde Ucci

Suggested by: Mankar Camoran^Talk 12:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I certainly like it, it looks like good VP material, though not quite big enough for FP imo. ResMar 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posed portraits are typically better-received than snapshots like this. The lightning and her hair are less than ideal. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Kingfisher Airlines Flight on Runway[edit]

Nice Picture

Articles this image appears in: Kingfisher Airlines

Creator: Amit Chattopadhyay

Suggested by: Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The plane looks fairly good, some people might dislike the somewhat problematic background. --I'ḏ ♥One 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is very noisy. Not sure what's wrong with the background? Jujutacular ^talk 21:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Speaker's Corner illustration[edit]

I think this both depicts the type of people who speak at speaker's corner (as seen in the sign) as well as the ethos of the place (the fact that the man is rather calm). High quality and very descriptive.

Articles this image appears in: Speaker's Corner

Creator: Panyd

Suggested by: Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think this would meet the EV requirement. It doesn't really help me understand what a speaker's corner is. A shot showing more of the surroundings, especially the crowd, would be more useful. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Fussball Player picture[edit]

High quality photograph of a table football player that is intriguingly framed. It illustrates a topic which is not of very high importance in a way that might lure people into looking more closely at the article.

Articles this image appears in: Table_football

Creator: Panyd

Suggested by: Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This probably wouldn't pass because it shows only half of the little fellow. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's better this way; if you showed the whole figure, there would be a lot of extra space to the bottom-left. ResMar 03:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Aqueduct of the Gier[edit]

**Original** - Vestiges of the Roman aqueduct in Chaponost, probably probably constructed in the first century CE to provide water for Lugdunum (modern day Lyon).

The picture has excellent resoultion and a great amount of EV.

Articles this image appears in: Chaponost, Aqueduct of the Gier

Creator: Taguelmoust

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 16:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice picture, good on the right side, but a bit unsharp on the left. --I'ḏ ♥One 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Ladakh Panorama[edit]

Original - Truly a striking place, the deep blue Tso (lake) Kar in eastern Ladakh and its salt-sprinkled beaches. Because it is surrounded by mountains with no natural outlets and was once much larger in area, the lake is brackish. Large salty deposits sit underwater like slush (we put our feet in) and gives a frost-like covering of the surrounding plain.

Beautiful Image

Articles this image appears in: Ladakh, Geography of Ladakh

Creator: McKay Savage

Suggested by: Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think this would pass FPC, the resolution seems low. --I'ḏ ♥One 06:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution is probably fine but it isn't very sharp (it looks like the image has been blurred or scaled up). There is also quite a lot of noise in the shadow areas. - Zephyris _Talk 11:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Evelyn Evelyn[edit]

A compelling (and certainly eye-catching) portrait by Kyle Cassidy. I'm nominating it here for a second opinion- I wonder whether FPC may not prefer a portrait that focuses more on the faces of the subject, rather than the very outlandish clothing adopted by these characters. Unusual nomination, as, while Evelyn Evelyn is a band, it makes more sense to treat its members as fictional characters, rather than Palmer/Webley is crazy clothes.

Articles this image appears in: Evelyn Evelyn, Amanda Palmer, Jason Webley

Creator: Kyle Cassidy

Suggested by: J Milburn (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think it could pass at FPC if it were larger so we could get a better look at the people in it and their faces, as is I'd say probably less than likely. =\ --I'ḏ ♥One 06:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really quite small. The surroundings are nice for mood, but there just aren't enough pixels devoted to the people. I prefer this sort of portrait over a face shot, though, because Evelyn Evelyn are supposed to be conjoined twins. It's good, but not quite there. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the full scale of the picture as shown, for the mood and ambience. I think the close up of the faces is a lesser concern when taking the overall look and mood into account. It's fitting, considering the band is less about the actual musicians and more about a theme or backstory as they were performing. I think the photo - as is - works perfectly in light of that and sums Evelyn Evelyn up perfectly. Less emphasis sometimes need to be off close-ups of faces, because that gets rather boring and monotonous to look at.

Seconder

Godavari Bridge Panorama[edit]

Original - Godavari Bridge Full Stretch. Standing 1 km northeast of the bridge.

A very nice and beautiful scenery.

Articles this image appears in: Godavari Bridge

Creator: Tatiraju.rishabh

Suggested by: Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a nice picture, but it's really not up to the standards expected of panoramas at FPC. Compare it to our other featured panoramas. There's also a problem with the heavy overexposure on the water. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, FPC goes for very large and detailed panoramas only. Because it's valuable to the subject it should probably pass VPC. --I'ḏ ♥One 06:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Do you think? Is it worth a try for VPC? I will try...Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too small even for VPC. You can't make out much detail on the bridge. And for a panorama, I'd really like to see the ends of the bridge. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Eukaryotic translation animation[edit]

**Original** - The elongation and membrane targeting stages of eukaryotic translation. The ribosome is green and yellow, the tRNAs are dark blue, and the other proteins involved are light blue.

This animation looks great and allows what is a horribly complicated process to be understood. I'd like to see whether people think it has a chance of passing as a featured picture before nominating it.

Articles this image appears in: Translation (genetics), eukaryotic translation, ribosome

Creator: Bensaccount

Suggested by: Smartse (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting (though I'm not entirely sure of what I'm looking at, something involving a cell process pattern?), but it doesn't look like it's complete. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the process of mRNA being used as a template to produce a protein. I guess it needs a longer caption saying that the first black string is mRNA and the one that is produced slowly is the protein. It is complete in that it is only showing the initiation and membrane binding steps (this is what allows proteins to end up in the right compartment of a cell) I think if it were any longer the file would be way too large. Smartse (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems insanely fast to me, but at over a minute already, slowing it down might make the whole animation too long. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Starling eggs.jpeg[edit]

I just found out that this got featured on the Turkish Wikipedia[1]; do you think it has a chance here?

Articles this image appears in: Starling, Clutch (eggs)

Creator: Mike R

Suggested by: Mike R (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think it's quite up to scratch, but it could have a chance. The image quality isn't quite there, and with a still and common subject like this, I think people would want more. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have to disagree, the quality seems pretty good to me, there's not really even any glare in this. I think it could pass.. What's wrong with it? --I'ḏ ♥One 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one thing I worry about here. Why are the eggs in a traditional nest? I thought starlings nested in tree hollows etc. The ones I've had to boot from my nesting boxes certainly do. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Acraea horta[edit]

Looking for feedback on this image, particularly whether it is a good candidate for Featured Picture. I'm interested in critique of the artistic merit (encyclopedic value, composition, depth of field, sharpness and detail). Feedback on the technical quality (compression and sharpening artifacts, fringing etc.) also appreciated as I could attempt to fix these from the original.

Articles this image appears in: Acraea horta, Acraea (genus)

Creator: Zunaid

Suggested by: Zunaid 09:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like this, but sadly I don't think it would pass FPC, the depth of field is too shallow I think. I'm satisfied with the sharpness, but someone at FPC might say it's not high enough (notice particularly its rear right wing). I do like how you blurred the background and flower but kept the butterfly pretty sharp. You could try it, maybe it might pass. --I'ḏ♥One 06:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In hindsight FPC has extremely high standards for insect photos. Having looked through a few FP's of insects I don't think this will make it :( What about VPC? Zunaid 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should be a cinch, and this seems to be the only image we have of the adult. Is it male or female? --I'ḏ♥One 10:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no idea. Will nominate it VPC soon as I get a chance. Zunaid 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Young European Starling[edit]

This is an especially sharp photo of these beautiful, metallic-colored, shrill and invasive birds. I was wondering if anyone else thinks this could pass at FPC when everyone isn't sick of bird images anymore.

Articles this image appears in: European Starling

Creator: Ingrid Taylar

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I had wished more headroom for the tail (tailroom?). But the composition is excellent and illustrative. Try! --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

African Bush Elephant(s)[edit]

There seems to be a consensus that Etosha elefant.jpg‎ is not a particularily useful image for enwiki even when I think this ist aesthetically ohe of the best elephant pictures here. The current elephant pictures 1 and 2 are unsharp or poorly framed. So my question to you is if you'd prefer to have one of these pictures as lead images and if yes which one. Could you imagine one of these as FP? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: currently unused

Creator: Ikiwaner

Suggested by: Ikiwaner (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Much better than the other photos as far as sharpness and angle showing the whole elephant, but it's disappointing than it seems it was taken on one of the only days it was looking like rain. Still it could possibly pass for its EV and it's not your fault for the overcast. V1 - Um... Has he been mating recently? I prefer the full pack in V2, I think I've heard that male elephants only stay with the herd when they have babies, though V1 shows the whole animal best. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Concerning weather: There are 94 rain days in Serengeti. It's not something unusual. Other opinions? --Ikiwaner (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Sorry, I guess I must be brainwashed by NatGeo, they always show the Serengeti looking like a near-desert. Congrats though, it looks like it's gonna pass on Commons. --I'ḏ ♥One 06:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Admonitions of the Court Instructress[edit]

Original - The entire nine scenes of the British Museum copy of the Admonitions Scroll, Scene 4 at the right, and Scene 12 at the left.

Very detailed map with excellent scanning quality; high resolution and well digitally preserved/restored; of considerable encyclopedic value and significance.

Articles this image appears in: Admonitions Scroll

Creator: Traditionally attributed to Gu Kaizhi. Original uploader was w:ru:User:Евгений Ардаев from the Russian Wikipedia; moved to Commons by a bot.

Suggested by: -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this could pass Valued Picture but i dont know about Featured Picture. Spongie555 (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

There's alot of very good images on that article, including this one. It might be nice to get it cleaned up a little but so far it might pass FPC. --I'ḏ ♥One 06:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valverde pitching motion[edit]

I've never gone through this process before, so forgive me if this is a terrible image. I figure there's probably a better way to crop and arrange the photos at least.

Articles this image appears in: José Valverde

Creator: Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs)

Suggested by: Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

VPC for sure. Pretty useful to the subject, but FPC is very rough on athlete photos and this one doesn't have nearly enough focus on him or an optimal enough angle. --I'ḏ ♥One 06:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with IdLoveOne. This could be an FP with some small differences: 1) taken from the other side of the field would be more optimal (to see the front of the pitcher) 2) remove much of the unnecessary space around the pitcher (crop) 3) quality is pretty much there, but there is a bit of chromatic aberration and blown highlights. Jujutacular ^talk 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

1900 republican campaign poster[edit]

Good quality and Good EV

Articles this image appears in: Spanish–American War, American imperialism, Cuba – United States relations

Creator: Rjensen

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Indian Roller[edit]

Nice shot, looks fairly educational.

Articles this image appears in: Indian Roller

Creator: J.M.Garg

Suggested by: ℳono 05:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It looks sickly and hurt? See File:Bird 8087918.jpg and File:Coracias benghalensis.jpg. We wouldn't promote something that isn't representative of a healthy specimen, unless your trying to illustrate a notable disease they get? — raeky T 05:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Too bad. A quick Bing shows nothing relating to disease. ℳono 06:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too small for FPC. Needs to be at least 1000px on one side. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The Columbia Supercomputer[edit]

Interesting subject, but I'm not sure it's quality is high enough. Thoughts?

Articles this image appears in: Supercomputer, Columbia (supercomputer), NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division, Computer, NASA Research and Engineering Network

Creator: NASA, uploaded by Epolk

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't think the fisheye lens in this case is good for the EV, and we have better images of supercomputers, see File:EarthSimulator.jpg File:Kraken_photo.jpg and File:JaguarXT5.jpg and maybe more at commons:Category:Supercomputers — raeky T 05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the lens. This type of shot is nice, though, because you get a better sense of what the computers look like. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

John Edmund "Jack" Fries[edit]

**Original** - Jack Fries, suited up for the 1908 Carroll College yearbook photo

Found this picture in an old 1908 college yearbook (therefore is in public domain). I think it just captures the "attitude and spirit" of the times

Articles this image appears in: John Edmund Fries

Creator: Paulmcdonald

Suggested by: Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Source link is broken. Image is very small. If a better scan could be obtained, this might have a chance. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

William Holman Hunt's "The Scapegoat"[edit]

Somebody should nominate this at FPC I think, unless someone can point out some disqualifying flaws I failed to notice. The painting is pretty well-known and we have a good size and quality digital version of it that is already featured on Commons. I'm not doing it because I always thought that, while good, it's kind of creepy. Taker? Comment? See any flaws?

Articles this image appears in: Goat, William Holman Hunt, Scapegoating, The Scapegoat (painting)

Creator: William Holman Hunt, uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First off the practice it's depicting is horrid torture of an animal, imho. Second, the author doesn't appear to be notable, but as far as I can tell the painting fails WP:GNG so it's page is probably a deletion candidate, imho. The two references are certainty not enough to pass WP:GNG I'm sure. The digitization of the painting seems to be sufficient, but it doesn't appear, at least to me, to be a very impressive painting. The hills in the background look far to simplistic and basic, and same with the skeleton in the foreground. Doesn't strike me as a anywhere near as detailed as some of his other works. I would have to oppose on EV grounds. — raeky T 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, so I'm not the only one who agrees the image is creepy, though it's mostly the colors and peculiarly located goat that freaks me out. Like it or not, scapegoating is very historical, Biblical even, and like most things Biblical its pretty irrational and a silly and horrific way to misplace responsibility for what was then considered 'sinful,' I suspect Hunt agrees since he made it such an evil-seeming illustration, but I think this is one of his best known and most notable paintings actually, it can be found on Google. --I'ḏ♥One 03:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there significant coverage in reliable third party sources about this specific painting? — raeky T 03:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, apparently the goat is meant to represent Jesus and it was painted when Hunt was quite well-known.[2][3] --I'ḏ♥One 04:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Umm.. reference.com just uses wikipedia data, if you note it's a carbon copy and even says where it came from... The article definitely needs help. — raeky T 04:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's meant to be creepy. It's a picture of a goat dying of thirst, painted from life by Hunt who actually took a real goat to the Dead Sea and starved it to death. It came as a surprise to art dealer Ernst Gambart, who remarked after Hunt had presented it to him that "I wanted a nice religious picture and he painted me a great goat.". As Richard J. Lane notes, it's the "moral duty" of this picture to be "basically repulsive and unpleasant to look at", since the message of an innocent creature suffering for one's iniquities is the very message that it is intended to convey. If you find it creepy, then you are following in the footsteps of many who have gone before. If you want an FPC vote from notable art critics, here are two. First a vote from William Michael Rossetti:

“

With the public I fear that it will be all but a failure, and certainly a theme for no little ridicule; […]

”

— W.M.Rosetti 1856, as cited in The Scapegoat (painting)

And second a vote from his brother, Dante Gabriel Rossetti:

“

A grand thing, but not for the public

”

— Dante Gabriel Rosetti. "Letter to William Allingham (1856-04)". In Oswald Doughty and John Robert Wahl (ed.). Letters of Dante Gabriel Rossetti: 1835–1860. Vol. 1. Clarendon Press.

There you go. Victorian sensibilities on whether this picture should be featured to the public. Ignore those silly modern national museums choosing this as picture of the month. Ignore those modern art critics who think this to be "great art" and "intoxicating Victorian folly". What would Waldemar Januszczak know about it? Go with the Victorians! ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to disagree with Raeky, I think this is a fantastic painting. However, the opinions of myself and Raeky on the painting itself don't really matter- it appears, from the article on the painting, to be very notable (not quite sure what Raeky's objection is, unless I'm missing something). We have the whole picture, the dimensions are right, the colours seem right. This'd be a strong support from me, apart from the fact the colours seem to be wrong. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

SEM Zoom[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/SEM_Zoom&action=edit&section=T-1

Original - A video illustrating a typical practical magnification range of a scanning electron microscope designed for biological specimens. The video starts at 25x, about 6 mm across the whole field of view, and zooms in to 12000x, about 12 μm across the whole field of view. The spherical objects are glass beads with a diameter of 10 μm, similar in diameter to a red blood cell.

An impressive demonstration of a central tool in modern microscopy.

Articles this image appears in: scanning electron microscope

Creator: Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Suggested by: - Zephyris _Talk 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note that there are some technical issues with this video, does anyone think they are serious issues?
- This was generated from a series of 10 images at different magnifications which do not stitch perfectly together because of sample drift etc.
- Some parts of the sample jumped during scanning giving some cut off beads (one of these is visible in the default video thumbnail).
I would have to support this just because it's super way up my ally, I love SEM's. Hope to get access to another again someday. ;-) I don't think the flaws are distracting enough to warrant opposes on them, imho. The 720p size is wonderful as well, although I would suggest making and uploading a 480p and maybe a smaller version as well for linking in articles. 17 megs for 18 seconds of video is probably beyond what some of our low-bandwidth/dial-up readers would want to view. Look at the size options provided for the recently promoted NASA video. Only things that if someone is super picky about is that the article talks about SEM's going as far as 500,000x and this stops at 12,000x, also the choice of subject of calibration beads is not as visually interesting as say an insect or something else. Other then that it's a wonderful concept and I think of great value. I'd support it for a FP. — raeky T 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! The article's 500000x magnification refers to tha instruments maximum, practically for a sputter coated biological sample you will see no more useful information at magnifications above ~20000x... I should probably add that to the SEM article. I hope I do get a chance to capture a more interesting subject in a similar way at some point :) - Zephyris _Talk 07:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you get hold of some pollen grains? Zooming in on something like this would be more interesting than glass beads. Palynology doesn't seem to be a particularly active area, but somebody in Oxford might be able to help. Smartse (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the technical deficiencies detract from this video. There is no scale bar in any of the images, the zoom frame starts with half specimen/half tape, even the edge of the tape is showing in the lower right, there is obvious charging streaking the image at the higher mags, the particles are poorly dispersed on the tape. There are some great SEM images on wikipedia, but there are also some of very poor technical quality that have been promoted to featured images. Featured images requires good technical quality at the least, this should hold for micrographs as well as photographs. --KMLP (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Eubrachyura[edit]

Great EV and Great resolution

Articles this image appears in: Crab, Liocarcinus vernalis, Eubrachyura

Creator: Lycaon

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I thought about thinking about nominating this in FPC, not sure I would because of some lighting issues in this on the ridges and the colors might be duller than they should be but I'm not sure. Stylistically the specimen on a black background is more often than not popular on FPC, but I think I'd just take it to VPC. --I'ḏ ♥One 09:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Felicia Day headshot[edit]

A rather high quality portrait, released by Felicia Day to us. Non-standard composition, makes it more compelling (that and well... it's Felicia Day!).

Articles this image appears in: Felicia Day

Creator: Felicia Day

Suggested by: — raeky T 01:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good, but the lighting is kind of cold, though her teeth and eyes look nice in it, and someone might say there's not enough head room. If I were voting I might offer at least a weak support. --I'ḏ♥One 09:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need head room when you do a non-standard composition, thats the point. ;-) — raeky T 12:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd absolutely love to support this, but, sadly, I doubt it was created by Felicia Day. I think we'd really need to know who created it- no doubt a professional photographer under her employ. We may even need a statement of release from them. J Milburn (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if you zoom in to the reflection in her eyeball, there is no cameraperson, just a camera on a tripod. What's the point of this page, anyway? --Surturz (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Illinois Central Railroad freight terminal[edit]

Interesting view of old Chicago, high resolution

Articles this image appears in: Grant Park (Chicago), Millennium Park, One Prudential Plaza

Creator: Jack Delano

Suggested by: — raeky T 22:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

39 Welsh Row, Nantwich[edit]

The picture has good EV and has nice resolution.

Articles this image appears in: Jacobethan, 39 Welsh Row, Nantwich

Creator: Espresso Addict

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 04:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To small for FP, VP is possible I think... — raeky T 04:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Iowa Supreme court[edit]

Good looking image, and shows the highest court in the state of Iowa

Articles this image appears in: Iowa Supreme Court and Iowa

Creator: Ctjf83

Suggested by: CTJF83 chat 02:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Might pass, but a bit of noise here and there like on the top and the shine on the rail is overexposed, and FPC can be very picky... --I'ḏ♥One 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That little shine in the lower left corner railing?! I can crop it out if need be. CTJF83 chat 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Failed FPC. Currently nominated at VPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Pillars of Wisdom[edit]

I like the picture and I'd like to know what other wikipedians think of it

Articles this image appears in: Wadi Rum

Creator: Tomobe03

Suggested by: Tomobe03 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Might pass if you make a good case for its EV, seems pretty sharp and clean to me. Good size, very well framed IMO. --I'ḏ ♥One 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shows one of the impressive rock formations in Wadi Rum, named The Seven Pillars of Wisdom. The name was given in memory of T. E. Lawrence, also known as Lawrence of Arabia, and his autobiographical book whose plot is based in the area, during the Arab Revolt. Even though the Seven Pillars referred to in the book have no connection with the Wadi Rum, the desert may be best known in the West for its connection with T. E. Lawrence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is only used in a gallery. The image must be used in the body of the article to be eligible at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped this one's place with another one of the same rock formation seen from a different angle in the body, if that will do. Thanks for the comments, though!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd bump the contrast a bit - it looks washed out. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this brings it closer to reality.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gouache paintings, related and Zorn[edit]

Image 1 - Självporträtt av Anders Zorn's self portrait, 1896

Image 2 - A paint set with gouache paint, brushes and palette. Gouache is water-based, but uses larger particles of pigment that remain suspended in the medium, which is also demonstrated by the cleaning water to the right.

Image 3 - Sold for 26 million SEK, Sweden's priciest painting ever

All HQ, all have EV, Image 2 is perhaps one of the best showcasing the medium itself.

Articles this image appears in: Image 1: Oil painting · Anders Zorn · Self-portrait. Image 2: Gouache · Gum arabic Image 3: Anders Zorn

Creator: Image 1: Anders Zorn, uploaded by Thuresson, Image 2: Jeff Dahl, Image 3: Anders Zorn, this version uploaded by user:AlphaZeta and previously by Nicke L

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not sure what this is, you trying to do a set, or each individually? — raeky T 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was just easier (by some definition of the word, or had seemed to be anyway at some point) than creating a PPR page for each of them =\ --I'ḏ♥One 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's no problem, just wasn't sure what was going on. I'll look at all 3 here in a bit and give you my thoughts. — raeky T 19:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Självporträtt av Anders Zorn 1896.jpg, the image history shows another version, facing another way and drastically different colors, which is right? Plus I think the picture is overall too small to be a FP, VP is a maybe provided you could clear up if this is the correct orientation and color. — raeky T 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to these reproducers[4] this version is the right direction, but this might just be that same one. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Gouache.jpg seems to posed and EV is questionable, not something I'd think of as representative of the painting style, not sure what use it is? — raeky T 20:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just thought it was a very good example of the medium itself instead of something created from it... --I'ḏ ♥One 09:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sommarnöje (1886), akvarell av Anders Zorn.jpg again significantly different colors in the two versions in the history, plus just doesn't seem big enough for a FP nomination, and EV is less than the self-portrait. Is this painter well known for this style of painting, as in is there many references that cite him as an example of this style? — raeky T 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I agree that it's not big enough, but he's got a whole museum to dedicated to him[5] so I guess to some serious art enthusiasts he's kind of a big deal. I don't know much about him, but I think he was pretty talented, the water is very impressive and I thought this painting was as well. --I'ḏ ♥One 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could give #3 a try at FPC to see what others think, not sure on #1, and #2 is probably no chance. — raeky T 00:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Queen Mary II[edit]

The picture has High EV and was a selected picture at Portal:Transport.

Articles this image appears in: Cunard Line, Port (nautical), Ocean liner, Passenger ship, RMS Queen Mary 2

Creator: Chris190572

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A bit out of focus, the weather's not ideal, it seems to have been taken around twilight and I know at FPC someone would have a problem with that tugboat, but otherwise great angle and capture of the entire side of the ship and with good room around it. ..Might pass at VP? --I'ḏ ♥One 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wakatobi beach[edit]

Amazing resolution, high EV in Wakatobi National Park and was a featured picture in Portal:Indonesia.

Articles this image appears in: Wakatobi National Park, List of national parks of Indonesia

Creator: ~~Elekhh~~ FlickrUser:Jenny from Taipei

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

FPC is out of the question, the boat is blown out, very bad loss of detail at full resolution, looks to have had contrast or some other metric overtly tweeked and too compressed. Not sure about a VPC... — raeky T 20:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed creator. --jjron (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wish I was there though ;). --Elekhh (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Darian Durant[edit]

**Original** - Saskatchewan Roughriders quarterback Darian Durant during practice.

I think this image illustrates the subject well, and I would also appreciate the feedback for future reference.

Articles this image appears in: Darian Durant

Creator: Canada Hky

Suggested by: Canada Hky (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Doesn't have the sharpness for a FPC, but a VPC is possible. — raeky T 20:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input! I will have to wait a bit to hit the 1-month time for VPC, but I appreciate your opinion, and that you took the time to check it out. Canada Hky (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Navy Pier[edit]

Great EV and resolution.

Articles this image appears in: Chicago, Navy Pier, National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago

Creator: Magnus Manske

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 18:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Shame, it's a good angle for the pier, but the overcast rules it out for a FPC, and might be an issue for a VPC. — raeky T 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this is the best angle for this shot. Something like or seems better to me, although it would have to be a heck of a shot to have the requisite detail. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very important angle due to the visibility of the Navy Pier sign. Ping me if you nom it at VPC. I am likely to support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah...too bad about the overcast issue. Had I known this was a candidate for FPC or VPC I would've taken one on a nicer day...too bad I don't live there anymore. =( Banpei (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Elements, Minerals and Ores[edit]

Copper

Amethyst

Albite

Aragonite

Pyrite

I like all of these and think they could make FP and all of them are either featured on Commons or a different language Wiki, but I'm not sure, does anyone think they might have artefacts or that the edges against the background might be too harsh to pass?

Articles this image appears in: Can we just say "a lot"?

Creator: Digon3

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 18:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Copper We have File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG as a FP for Copper, which is an Element and the image is not used on the element's page. That rules it out. — raeky T 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amethyst Not used on Amethyst and we have File:Amethyst. Magaliesburg, South Africa.jpg as our FP for Amethyst, again, image not used on it or Quartz which has this FP File:Quartz, Tibet.jpg. So we could probably rule that one out too. — raeky T 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albite Image appears to be quite heavily digitally manipulated, some pretty obvious cutout artifacts along the bottom and reflection is probably fake, also the sample isn't really that impressive, so I think that would probably fail too. — raeky T 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aragonite Not used on Aragonite or anywhere else, and we seem to have some pretty good images on Aragonite already.. so thats probably ruled out. — raeky T 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrite Not used on Pyrite or anywhere else really, and we have an excellent FP of Pyrite already, File:Pyrite from Ampliación a Victoria Mine, Navajún, La Rioja, Spain 2.jpg, as you can see the sample isn't that impressive compared to the one in our existing FP. — raeky T 03:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Metallic chess pieces[edit]

**Original** - External to internal: Rooks, Bishops, and a King and Queen (unsure which is which)

I think it has great eye-appeal for FP and looks beautiful as the lead image on the chess page, but it's not used right now and the background looks like a piece of paper with some crumples.. Does it need anything done?

Articles this image appears in: None yet

Creator: Photograph taken by Glenn McKechnie

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 07:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Doesn't look like the editors like that picture, which is probably a sign. It's not a very typical chess pieces, seems to be hand crafted, fairly low quality photograph, blown highlights... I like the current lead image on Chess, the black & white pieces is what everyone associates with chess, not a stylistic steel chess pieces. — raeky T 03:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, I only added it briefly and reverted it for demonstration. The lighting doesn't seem too blown out to me, and I was thinking the same thing that it's good to have one that shows both color pieces since that's a major aspect of the game. --I'ḏ ♥One 07:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Raeky here. J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

An elephant[edit]

Well, it's a decent size and angle, but not sure about the resolution. I think it could maybe make VP?

Articles this image appears in: African Bush Elephant · Megafauna · Paenungulata

Creator: nickandmel2006 on Flickr

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sadly this was taken with a 2006 5mp point-and-shoot camera, and it shows. There is very little detail in the photograph and the colors are very dull. I couldn't support this for a FP. It's current usage as the lead image on multiple relevant pages, even general Elephant and Paenungulata, means it'd probably be a shoe-in for VP, I'd support it there. — raeky T 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very dynamic image and I love the green background too. However the cut off left ear is the main flaw and technical quality is very low. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

French Press Set[edit]

Thought this might make it through VP, but not sure if it's worth nominating.

Articles this image appears in: French press

Creator: Yongbin

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 09:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The last glass is half cropped. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you can see the top half reflected in the French press... =\ --I'ḏ ♥One 00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image doesn't tell me anything about how this is used, File:French press cafetiere with coffee on Coffee Right in Brno, Czech Republic.jpg I think is a far more EV image of a French press, and it's even potentially good enough for a FP, maybe. — raeky T 03:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Four Kingfishers[edit]

Image 1 - Yellow-billed Kingfisher (Syma torotoro)

Image 2 - A male Blue-winged Kookabura at the Cotswold Wildlife Park, Oxfordshire, England.

Image 3 - Kingfisher with a frog for its meal

Image 4 - Brown-headed Paradise-kingfisher.

Good images, wondering if anyone else thinks they could make VP at least.

Articles this image appears in: Kookaburra, Kingfisher

Creator: Richard Taylor on Flickr

Suggested by: I'ḏ ♥One 08:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

#1 -- The colors seem dull, could use some levels adjustment. Not big enough or detailed enough I don't think for a FP. A VP is a maybe if it gets some graphic labs help to brighten up the colors. — raeky T 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#2 -- These birds scare the willies out of me, like File:Bluewingedadelzoo.JPG that angle. Being shot in a zoo with a very artificial background would rule this out at FP, plus it's not up to par with recent bird FP's we've promoted. Not sure about VP, possibly... — raeky T 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It they freak you out it's probably my fault for arraigning them like this. >=) --I'ḏ ♥One 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#3 -- We recently passed File:Dacelo novaeguineae waterworks.jpg, therefore that rules out #3. — raeky T 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
#4 -- Interesting picture, not sure if the original would do it or not, but at this scaled down size it just wouldn't pass FP.. VP again is a maybe. — raeky T 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Delgadillo's Snow Cap Drive-In[edit]

Good EV and nice quality.

Articles this image appears in: U.S. Route 66, Seligman, Arizona, Delgadillo's Snow Cap Drive-In

Creator: PMDrive1061

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a modern picture of a business that's still in business, it's quality and composition doesn't strike me as anything special, a better image could be taken to replace this, maybe one not on an overcast day, or from a better angle or view. — raeky T 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Bumblebee On Lavendar[edit]

A detailed picture of a Danish bumblebee on a popular plant of theirs - lavendar.

Articles this image appears in: no articles yet, but will be in the bumblebee article if the feedback is good enough.

Creator: TobiasKierk

Suggested by: TobiasKierk (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

We have very high standards when it comes to insect featured pictures, see Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Animals/Insects, there is focus issues here, size, lighting and some weird hair thats distracting. Don't see this passing FPC or VPC, sorry. — raeky T 22:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To add, I'm not sure Bumblebee needs any additional pictures, I don't see where this picture is specifically better then any of the others as a replacement or that it adds something not already covered by one of the other pictures. Sorry. — raeky T 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the hair are a bit distracting. I will try to remove them. However, I don't see any light, size or focus issues. The size is like many other pictures (including featured) on wikipedia. Regarding the Bumblebee article, this picture has some serious focus and size problems: . I've added my picture to the Lavender article, where it suits pretty well. TobiasKierk (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea lavender does need some more pictures, I donno, it could replace the linked image, you can either be WP:BOLD and do it, or ask on the talk page for other editors of that article's opinion. — raeky T 01:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Trube Castle, Galveston[edit]

Good quality with a fairly good amount of EV.

Articles this image appears in: Galveston, Texas, Free State of Galveston

Creator: Magnus Manske

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 21:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Marginal EV for the articles, size concerns, lighting appears to be overly harsh, focus concerns, power lines should be cloned out since they're distracting, wouldn't really have a chance at either FPC or VPC, imho. If there was a Trube Castle then VPC is probably doable, but it's just not enough EV in Galveston, Texas or Free State of Galveston for it. — raeky T 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the lighting is too harsh, I think this is a good and nice-looking photo and that many others at FPC would agree about that. But I do agree that I don't see the EV for the image, is it of any historical significance? Also, you'd most like get at least one oppose for the size, even though it meets the current rule that it have a dimension over 1000px some voters insist on HUGE photos only. --I'ḏ ♥One 00:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Tulsa Skyline[edit]

The picture is of great quality and resolution, is of important EV, and is a selected picture in Portal:Oklahoma.

Articles this image appears in: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, History of Tulsa, Oklahoma, List of tallest buildings in Tulsa

Creator: CPacker

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Theres to much focus in the picture on the park and not the skyline imho, also for skylines the precedent is usually for panorama's now a days. — raeky T 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

American Cowboy in 1872[edit]

File:Cowboy 1872.jpg

Original - The cowboy, the quintessential symbol of the American Old West, circa 1872

It's a good, valuable picture of the American Old West that's in great resolution.

Articles this image appears in: Oklahoma, ~~Cowboy~~, Western United States, American Old West, Frontier Strip, 19th century in the United States, ~~Western riding~~

Creator: Grabill, John C. H

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This particular version I don't think would stand a chance at FP, although a high-quality restoration of the original may. — raeky T 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about VP? Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 21:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the original with all the room around it, i'd oppose it because it's too tightly cropped and doesn't follow any rules like lead room and rule of thirds. It has the EV part down though, pretty good EV for Cowboy and Western riding, the other articles I wouldn't focus on since it has very little EV in. — raeky T 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I added an Edit 1 with solves some issues with the prevoious one and I slashed out "western riding" and "cowboy" because that's where edit 1 appears in now. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original doesn't follow the rules I listed, and the two articles you slashed out are the ones with the most EV in it.. the other edit isn't ideal either. — raeky T 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Mounatins, Oklahoma[edit]

It's a great picture of a piece of Oklahoma's landscape at great resolution. it's also a selected pictire on Portal:United States and Portal:Oklahoma.

Articles this image appears in: Oklahoma, Mesa, Glass Mountains, Northwestern Oklahoma, Geography of Oklahoma

Creator: Nmajdan

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Doesn't seem to have a sharp focus and the road on the left is distracting, unlikely pass FPC or VPC. — raeky T 13:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Snowy Egret[edit]

**Original** - A snowy egret (Egretta thula) perched on a log. Taken in the Orlando region, Florida, USA.

I think the picture has pretty high EV, showing the bird in a natural pose, exhibiting the common field marks (egret shape, white, with black legs and yellow "boots". It's high res, and sharp detail. I might have moved it straight to FP nominations, but I wanted a second opinion. I uploaded this pic to replace the one formerly listed, which I think had lower EV. Nevertheless, I don't want to seem utterly self-promoting here - hoping to get an objective eye or two involved. See Talk:Snowy Egret for details about the swap.

Articles this image appears in: Snowy Egret

Creator: Johnath

Suggested by: Johnath (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Probably doesn't have a chance, appears to have some seriously blown out highlights along the top of the bird. — raeky T 02:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this was part of my concern, too - the blown highlights aren't masking important details, but they do detract from the technical quality somewhat.--Johnath (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blown highlights like this might be forgiven for a WP:VPC but is pretty much impossible to get through a WP:FPC. — raeky T 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why you should shoot RAW - highlight recovery would be easy. The head of the egret also seems to be out of focus. Hopefully it isn't too difficult to try again. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - FWIW, I do shoot RAW. Recovery still leaves this patchy though. Alas! --Johnath (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Ross Barnett Reservoir Sunset[edit]

I took this photograph. I live right next to the lake and often get to see really awesome sunsets. I'm curious what others think of this picture, and any suggestions on how I can take better photographs of sunsets.

Articles this image appears in: Ross Barnett Reservoir

Creator: the creator of the image, where possible using the format The Eskimo

Suggested by: The Eskimo (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Undeniably beautiful, but I don't think it the image teaches much about the reservoir except the obvious: That it has a lot of water in it. If you'd managed to get an over shot, like from a small plane or a satellite (hint: Perhaps GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth), that would probably pass at FPC, but I might support this at VPC. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not upload from GoogleMaps/GoogleEarth, their satellite images are under copyright. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures, but the point about an aerial shot of a reservoir standing a better chance at FPC and being more educational then a sunset photo still stands, pretty though it may be. Still, some people might give it credit for being the lead image. From this angle you can't see how big it is, and it's big, bigger than a nearby town or two, an airport and something called a "wildlife management area" combined, though all of them are kind of small so it's all in perspective, but it's still 16 miles long. Maybe this can help. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess could you try it at FPC if you want to, if it fails, it fails, but there might be some willing to vote in favor of it on its beauty, meeting size qualifications and connection to the article. This is public domain made from a NASA software. This got featured, but notice that it's larger than yours; I don't really agree with it but FPC tends to favor larger images. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to tell you how to live your life or what you should or shouldn't regard as private information, but can I suggest that you take your home address off the image page of this - it's usually not good to advertise that type of thing. Geocoding it would be a better option. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

African Masks and Sculptures[edit]

Image 1 - A wooden mask made by the Punu tribe in Gabon

Image 2 - A 30 cm ebony sculpture.

Image 3 - Fang mask used for the Ngil ceremony. Wood, Gabon, 19th century.

Image 4 - Mask, Urhobo peoples, Nigeria, Early to mid-20th century.

All of these are in better than usual quality, are prominently used in their articles, have obvious EV to them and are beautiful and obviously made by someone talented.

I'm looking for the support of seconders or really good reasons why one or more of these shouldn't be featured. I'm not sure if Image 1 has a free license.

Articles these images appear in: Image 1:
Tribal art · African art
Image 2:
Wood as a medium · Ebony · African art
Image 3:
Mask · Beti-Pahuin peoples · Les Demoiselles d'Avignon · Picasso's African Period · Musée de l'Homme · An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" · African traditional masks
Image 4:
Urhobo · African traditional masks

Creators: Image 1: Photo by Docludi, Image 2: Photo by MisterMatt,
Image 3: Photo by Jastrow, Image 4: Photo by cliff1066 on Flickr
No artisans' names specified or available.

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image 4. I find the shadows on the wall very offputting, shadows on mask itself quite harsh, and lighting in general less than optimal. Size and quality aren't great. Suggest it would fare badly at FPC. Haven't looked at the others. --jjron (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images 1 and 2 have some poorly removed backgrounds - the edges are rough. Both could be a bit sharper. Image 3 seems like it was taken through glass. Image 4 has the issues jjron mentioned. I think all of them have a decent chance at VPC, but would probably not pass at FPC. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The Delaware Regiment at the Battle of Long Island[edit]

**Original** - Colonial American soldiers in combat.

I think this has strong feature picture potential. It is the lead image of the same subject shown in the painting, so definite EV, it is a selected image in a portal and its quality is so good you can see the grain of the canvass. It might need a little work, it might be blacker than it ought to be and the sky a strange tint too much of purplish-pink, but I think the tweaks needed are minor and that this meets the criteria of a featured picture.

Can someone help me find some technical information about the painting, its date and creator? I can't find anything.

Articles this image appears in: Long Island
Battle of Long Island
Portal:American Revolutionary War/Selected event
Portal:American Revolutionary War/Selected event/10

Creator: Domenick D'Andrea, this version uploaded by Spellcast

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

This definitely appears featureable. Might need minor edits, as you say, but I'll leave that to someone who knows the original better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that this is not a painting from the period it depicts: here's another from the same painter depicting WWI. This may detract somewhat from its encyclopedic value. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The time period shouldn't detract from the actual quality of the painting. I say it's worth going ahead and nominating this for FP. Spellcast (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I guess I might later, after the Trafalgar fiasco I'm not quite sure of paintings that have deteriorated too much. --I'ḏ ♥One 00:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alitta succinea[edit]

I've just created the two articles in which this appears, but now I'm not certain whether it is worth nominating, and I know my judgement's been a little off in the last few days. Worth nominating for FP?

Articles this image appears in: Alitta succinea, Alitta

Creator: Hans Hillewaert

Suggested by: J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You've already nominated a better picture... remember File:Nereis succinea (epitoke).jpg.... Nereis succinea is a synonym for Alitta succinea, thus the same organism. — raeky T 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DAMN. That's a real trout moment. Well spotted... I think I should hand this over to someone who knows more about this sort of thing than me. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the colour balance on this image is quite similar to the modification I made to the one currently nominated as a featured picture... - Zephyris _Talk 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yup, feel free to mention it in the nom. In other news, I've dealt with this now, so feel free to close this. :) J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lakeview in Western Ghats[edit]

File:Nature in the lake.JPG

Original - Beautiful Scenery at a lake in Western Ghats. Taken By Nikon D50

Very Nice picture.

Articles this image appears in: Western Ghats

Creator: Tatiraju.rishabh

Suggested by: Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Colors seem to be off, also not clear enough EV for FP or VP. — raeky T 23:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Western Ghats[edit]

File:Western Ghats.JPG

Original - View of Western ghats near Pune, India. Very nice picture

Very nice picture.

Articles this image appears in: Western Ghats

Creator: Tatiraju.rishabh

Suggested by: Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not detailed enough and not clear enough EV for a FP or VP. Sorry. — raeky T 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

4 Stroke Engine[edit]

This is a large improvement on the existing image; it is higher resolution, has smoother animation and removes some of the unnecessary detail.

Articles this image appears in: None as yet, but will be on:

Engine
Internal combustion engine
Poppet valve
Camshaft
Petrol engine
Four-stroke engine
Cylinder (engine)
Crankcase
Single cylinder engine

Creator: Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Suggested by: - Zephyris _Talk 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note there is a smaller resolution version also available for embedding.
I think an animation of this principle is very useful. The big one doesn't animate? Not to worry, it's too big to embed anyway at 17MB. Personally I think the description should be enhanced, maybe with some labelling, and poor wording such as 'suction stroke' improved. However, other than running a bit smoother, I think I'd need some convincing that it's an improvement over the existing FP File:4-Stroke-Engine.gif. --jjron (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The big version is animated, but Wiki doesn't produce animated thumbnails... Obviously improvement of the caption is easy, at the moment it is copied directly from the existing FP. In terms of improvement I would argue: 1. this version is not pixelated, 2. this version removes unneeded detail making the diagram clearer, 3. this version has far more frames, therefore is a smoother animation. On these terms I would argue this image is better than the existing FP, plus I am available here and now to apply any improvements people suggest! - Zephyris _Talk 23:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't animate on the image page either when I view that, so I guess you have to open the full image; I wish we could thumbnail animations. In that case I think we'd definitely be only featuring the big one in principle, but in reality featuring the smaller one as that one would be getting used in article space. Yes, you make some good points - I actually liked some of the detail on the original, but now looking at them side by side, I see some more positives to the new one (can I suggest you change that characterless 1 in yours to something with a serif though, like in the existing one? That's jarring with me every time I view it.). I personally - personally - feel the animation may also benefit from being slowed down slightly, but that could just be me, possibly more to the speed of the existing one. BTW your spark is considerably better as well. Labelling on the actual animation may be too messy, but perhaps we could create a single frame version that named all the key parts? --jjron (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A new slightly slower version with a serif'd "1" will be simple to make... I also have a labeled version as a WIP, I have avoided it so far because it is not multilingual but I will finish it and upload it as an alternative...
Actually, Wikipedia does support animated thumbnails. See the last two thumbnails in this gallery. Recent behind-the-scenes changes made any animations that, in their native size, have 25 million or more total animation pixels (pixel height times pixel width times number of frames) become frozen. So big animations can be “thumbnails” only if they are specified in their native size. I make all my “big” animations (like this one “Cobalt”) in the size they will be actually used in the article. That spinning “NURBS” animation is a thumbnail, but it is specified in native size. The pint-size ones in the gallery are also a thumbnail of sorts. Those wouldn’t work if either of them exceeded 25 million pixels when full size.
BTW, I like this second animation. But I would suggest arrows or particles in the gas stream in both the intake and exhaust ports to indicate the direction of gas flow. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Another example of Wikipedia developers screwing over content. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images Updated Added in/out arrows for fuel and exhaust, replaced numbers with serif'd font and slowed animation. - Zephyris _Talk 07:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking better I think. Not a fan of the font used though, looks bad - the one in the existing FP looks much nicer. Yeah, the arrows are OK. Personally I'd use more standard thinner black arrows within the gas stream that actually overlap into the engine. Not sure that any of that should go beyond the engine anyway, as it suggests it's coming/going straight from the external air rather than through the (unshown) manifolds - the way the existing one works suggests that it's the diagram that stops there rather than the engine itself (does that make sense?). Maybe the arrows come in a little quick - you've probably timed them to the exact frame where the valve first starts opening, but just watching the animation it feels very sudden. Going good. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Well done (Very well done). I think the one captioned “Low res version for imbedding” is outstanding and hope to see it on FPC. Greg L (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

D&R at FPC. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Game[edit]

This image captures the essence of the game.

Articles this image appears in: The Game (mind game)

Creator: Paulyg143

Suggested by: Paulyg143 (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks, I just lost. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way too low of a resolution to be even considered as a FP or VP. Its addition to the article in question was contentious and thus (as of right now) its encyclopedic merits are in question. Its caption was not 'succinct' and referenced another Internet meme in the process. As of right now, this picture would likely fail a FPN/VPN per WP:SNOW. elektrik SHOOS 10:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a derivative work, thus copyright violation. — raeky T 12:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Image deleted. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane skyline[edit]

Very nice and educational picture

Articles this image appears in: Brisbane, Queensland, List of tallest buildings in Brisbane

Creator: Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre

Suggested by: Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

small, blown out sky... wouldn't pass either based on that IMHO. — raeky T 02:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Current VPC candidate. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human migration chart[edit]

It is a very informative and beautiful chart.

Articles this image appears in: Human

Creator: KVDP

Suggested by: Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It has extremely high EV as a diagram, but would need some serious reworking to get to featured picture kind of level. Firstly it is a .png and definitely needs to be redrawn as a .svg. This would also solve some of the slightly weird blurred bits. The colour coding of arrows could be improved to more clearly show their age and the labels could do with being associated with the arrows better. - Zephyris _Talk 20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs references and should probably be converted to .svg. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Colossal Egyptian statue[edit]

Large, the statue is in good quality, an aspect of human history and has EV to at least four articles.

Articles this image appears in: Ancient Egypt, Abu Simbel temples, History of ancient Egypt, Africa

Creator: Photo by Merlin-UK

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As far as EV is concerned, the image only has tangential EV in Ancient Egypt, History of ancient Egypt, and Africa, and since it's only in the gallery at Abu Simbel temples, its EV there is limited as well. From a strictly EV standpoint, this would very likely not succeed at either FPC or VPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only in a gallery? That gallery shows many other aspects of the same monument, which is what the article itself is about. How can ancient Egypt be one of the earliest major human civilizations and relics of it considered not of encyclopedic value? And you must give this image credit for its quality. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, only in a gallery. FPs must contribute significantly to an article; gallery usage has never been considered significant. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The image could be moved, I'd suggest switching it out for this image currently in this section, and once again, I think you're missing the significance of the image itself. Just because it's in a gallery in on one page out of four doesn't lower its quality or historic importance. Ancient Egyptian history is regarded as important to the whole of the development of humanity and the house of Ramses has taught us plenty. Lastly saying it's "just a gallery image" definitely does not reduce the importance of an image or its subject, otherwise suddenly a lot of historic artwork means nothing by your definition. I don't have a problem with the inclusion of galleries, getting a quick overview of their examples, but all they really mean is that someone was too lazy to give the image a deep explanation, that Wikipedia probably wouldn't allow it seeing it as unimportant or that like in my example two links ago no explanation to the images' relevance is necessary, maybe a deep description of that image is redundant or superfluous to the article at hand or that you could simply read up on all you need to know about that image somewhere else on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if this image is not feature-worthy, though I can't claim to be any type of egyptologist, I'm not buying that it's because of a lack of EV, especially with such damn good photo quality! --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Three nice crabs[edit]

Image 1 - A ghost crab

Image 2 - A Corystes cassivelaunus or Helmet crab specimen

Image 3 - A redder helmet crab

Three good images of three different types of crabs. I think they're all at least valued picture quality, but I think Image 2 has the highest quality. It appears that Image 3 actually should be a featured picture since its candidacy was not opposed. This one is also pretty interesting, but I don't know.

Articles these images appear in: Image 1 and Image 2 Crab. Image 3 Corystes cassivelaunus, Corystidae

Creator: Image 1: Patrick Verdier, reuploaded by Alkapote, Image 2 and Image 3: Lycaon

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Featured picture candidates require a minimum of 5 supports including the nominator, so it was closed correctly. In a case with no opposes though a renom may not be a bad idea. That said, I will agree that Image 2 is of higher quality. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{Oh, so sort of like how this didn't get promoted, didn't have 5 votes even though it didn't have much opposition. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Image 1 looks pretty cool at thumbnail, but IQ is pretty bad even at the relatively small size provided. --jjron (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Gharial headshot[edit]

I almost wanted to run to FPC with this. Pretty high-quality shot of its head and snout and, I think, indisputable EV to its article.

Articles this image appears in: Gharial

Creator: Matěj Baťha

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Feels sort of on the edge to me. A little bit noisy, but not terrible, and it could be a little bit sharper. I would probably give it a weak support at FPC, but others may disagree. I will say its EV is high in my opinion, as it shows the nice distinguishing feature of the Gharial. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EV is decent, but image quality is insufficient for FP imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Valued pic, maybe? I'm in between both your opinions also, we've seen FPC overlook minor quality issues for rare pictures, and this might be amongst the best of a rare animal. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rare in the wild, but easy to photograph in the zoo (where this shot was taken). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Fritillaria imperialis[edit]

**Original** - Kaiser's crown lilies in full bloom

Beautiful and great quality, the lighting complements the reds in the flowers' stems and petals very nicely, I think the quality is note-worthy.

Articles this image appears in: None yet

Creator: Kham Tran

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd very much doubt it would have a chance. It's not illustrating the detail of one flower, but then despite being a 'distant' view, it doesn't even illustrate a full plant. Resolution is very marginal. --jjron (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think suggesting it in FPC would make the critics there start snarling. I was wondering if anyone else thinks the quality of this is up to snuff for VP. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I know, an image must be in an article for at least a month before it can be a VP. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And as we've tried to tell Tony a number of times, VPC isn't just a consolation prize for failed FPCs. I think the same problems I mentioned above would still be an issue at VPC. --jjron (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Photo of mint leaves budding[edit]

**Original** - Top of a stem of a mint plant

I love the resolution and clarity of the image, it has obvious EV to its subject and possibly others like herbs. If someone else nominated this in FPC I think I might support it. It has one dimension above 1000, it meets size criteria so we don't need to speculate about it being too small. Let's keep comments to whether or not it's of high enough quality, strong enough EV and so on please.

Articles this image appears in: Mentha, List of vegetables in Assam

Creator: Kham Tran

Suggested by: I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To be honest the resolution is probably a problem. Despite being over the recommended size it is a very common subject so the quality expected will be higher. As for the image itself the DOF is too low; the top four leaves, the subject of the image, are not fully in focus. As for EV unless it is being specifically used to demonstrate the nodal symmetry of mint then a better composition would be a profile or isometric-like angle... - Zephyris _Talk 15:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Photomontage[edit]

This is one of few photomontages that we have on all Wikimedia projects, and IMO one of the best! I was going to nominate this for FP, but it seems digital manipulation is unacceptable here... however, I believe it's very educational, also it have great value because it was made by a wikimedian using content from wikimedians, sources are clears and it has a free license. I would like to hear others opinions about this work and it's possible FP nomination.

Articles this image appears in: Photomontage, Photo manipulation, Image editing

Creator: Mmxx

Suggested by: ■ MMXX ^talk 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The reflection of the satellite dish seems unrealistic and seems to appear combined with the reflection of the hills. There are signs of clear manipulation beneath the Broadway towers. There's something funky going on SE of the person where the boat meets the water and where the water meets the shore (looks like a stitching error). There's another stitching error in the lower right. Focus is very inconsistent: the red church is OOF, the Maoi statue on the other side (which I presume is equidistant from the "camera") is focused, the trees next to the Maoi stature are not. I think (based on my outdated opinion) for this subject FP standards are higher. MER-C 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to fix those problems and upload a new version within few days, I just couldn't understand what you mean by this: "something funky going on SE of the person where the boat meets the water and where the water meets the shore" where do you mean exactly? ■ MMXX ^talk 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed I have uploaded a new version, please see how is it. ■ MMXX ^talk 11:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as image manipulations I think side-by-sides tend to be more educational then random things like this. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I definitely wouldn't throw out the concept of a photo montage for FP altogether, but it would need to be more realistic looking in my opinion. The lighting and DOF seem to be too inconsistent currently to look like a real photo. To clarify MER-C's comment: there is some kind of stitching error directly below the boat. There is solid near-vertical division between water and rocks on the shore. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like this, because the lack of realistic content, while being photoshopped to have realistic reflections and such, is useful for illustrating the concept. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baner Hill Biodiversity Park[edit]

It is a very nice picture.

Articles this image appears in: Baner Hill

Creator: Tatiraju.rishabh

Suggested by: Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The composition is a little uninteresting - I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. It's also a bit noisy, and not very sharp. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's all a bit of nothing sorry, this wouldn't stand a chance at either FPC or VPC. Composition would need to be vastly improved, possibly thru creating a panorama. --jjron (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are we supposed to be looking at here? There doesn't seem to be any focal point or particular subject. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it's illustrating the hill at the left. --jjron (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

View of Karitane[edit]

It's a very nice photo of the sea, mountain and sky.

Articles this image appears in: Karitane

Creator: JaumeBG

Suggested by: JaumeBG (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is not really featured picture quality, it looks out of focus, the horizon is not horizontal, there is quite a bit of noise and the colours are quite dull. Other than that it is a wonderful view! - Zephyris _Talk 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wellington Arch[edit]

The sunrise behind the statue makes the picture look differently from any over resolution. The statue outlines come out quite well. The picture was tacken in the early hours of the morning.

Articles this image appears in: Wellington Arch

Creator: Jaguar 20:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested by: Jaguar 20:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This will not pass at FPC. The statue is completely in silhouette. There appears to be significant artifacting as well. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Godavari Arch Bridge[edit]

It is a very nice pic.

Articles this image appears in: Godavari Arch Bridge

Creator: Tatiraju.rishabh

Suggested by: Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a pretty picture with really nice colours - however, I don't really like the composition here, as the bridge finishes too close to the center of the scene: the lines would work better if the angle was more to the left, giving more bridge and better use of thirds. Other than composition, the bridge isn't displayed really well in that light. - Bilby (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad about the weather, it would be nicer if the Sun were out or if there was a nice sunset. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Natural Arch, Tirumala hills[edit]

It is a very nice picture. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Natural Arch, Tirumala hills

Creator: Tatiraju.rishabh

Suggested by: Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The harsh lighting would kill chances at FPC. Retaking this with less light around is the way to go -- wow could be increased without compromising encyclopedic value. The photographer could also try some tone mapping, but he needs RAWs and additional images at different exposures for that. MER-C 13:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might consider supporting this, the detail in the stone and plants is very good. What I really dislike is how everything seems unnaturally colorful, it almost looks like a cheesy digital rendering. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Diatomaceous earth[edit]

This is a high quality micrograph of a common and widely used substance presented in unusually high detail.

Articles this image appears in: Diatomaceous earth, Dynamite, Silicate, Diatom, Micropaleontology and Biogenic silica.

Creator: Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Suggested by: - Zephyris _Talk 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note that there are also two alternative versions available, one using dark field illumination and the other using phase contrast illumination.

Bright field image (as on the right).
Dark field image.
Phase contrast image.

I would specifically be interested in comments on scale and cropping; this is very large image with great detail and I am struggling to decide which balance would be best, easily visible detail (cropping to a small area) or a greater sense of scale (full image with ~1mm field of view). - Zephyris _Talk 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have also said this is a stitched montage of 30 images (6x5) so keep an eye out for stitching artefacts. These are pretty impossible to avoid (the whole sample is undergoing brownian motion) but it would be good to know about serious problems. - Zephyris _Talk 21:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

FPC adores "science-y" stuff like this, and I love how great the quality is for such a very large image and many people on FPC are strongly biased toward really big images. I don't think you'd meet with much resistance if you nominated this. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atari XE joystick[edit]

I'm trying to get the hang of product shots without studio lighting, and whether or not it is worth pursing at the moment. Anyway, the Atari style joystick always seemed iconic.

Articles this image appears in: Joystick

Creator: Bilby

Suggested by: Bilby (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I doubt this would pass FPC. This is a nice way to illustrate the article, but I think the joystick (excluding the shadow) needs more contrast and needs to be brighter. Greg L (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that - it was a good idea. I've uploaded it again with more contrast on the base, but left the stick roughly where it was - greater contrast there caused issues with the detail. Comparing it to the real thing, on my monitor it looks pretty right, but that might just be my settings. :) As an aside, I'm not really concerned with FPC, so much as trying to get this process right: I have an extensive collection, and the query is whether or not the quality of the better shots makes this worth pursing, or if I should just hope to get hold of the money for the lighting one day. - Bilby (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That’s quite an improvement. I think I’d still go brighter (personally). Greg L (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There you go - I've layered out the background and button, and then increased the contrast on the base some more. Thanks heaps for the help, it's great. I've compared the actual thing now on Mac and PC monitors, both calibrated as best I can, and it seems ok. If I get the chance I'll grab a gray card today, as that looks like it would be handy. I should have thought of that before. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Elakala Falls #2[edit]

When I asked Greg L to review a few images I took to help me pick the best ones to illustrate the article, he suggested this may make a good FP, so I'm bringing it up here to see what other's opinions are.

Articles this image appears in: Elakala Falls

Creator: Raeky

Suggested by: — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This picture seems completely disorienting to me. I don't get much sense of depth. But it's pretty darn late and I haven't slept in a very long time, so take that with a grain of salt. Of more concern to me is the EV. There's already an FP in the article - it depicts the most popular of the falls - so I'm not sure how much this image really adds. There doesn't seem to be anything particularly noteworthy about the second falls. I'm not opposed to >1 FP in an article, but this is a short article and I'd think that one high-quality image of the falls is enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Microscope Objective Lenses[edit]

This is a high quality image of an object, a microscope objective lens, most people would otherwise not get a chance to see.

Articles this image appears in: Optical microscope Objective (optics) Oil immersion

Creator: Richard Wheeler (Zephyris)

Suggested by: - Zephyris _Talk 16:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seems a little dark, maybe lighten it up a bit.. or even better lighten it up and mask out the lenses and fully adjust the whiteness so the image has a proper white background... I don't think it would have a chance of passing without at least some adjustment to the levels to lighten it up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a levels adjusted version, sadly the background can't be flattened to white too easily - the objectives are just as light in colour as the paper! - Zephyris _Talk 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be easy no, but like I did with the grapefruit image, mask out the objectives then lighten the background to white. By masking them they won't get adjusted but the background you can tweak all the way to white. ;-) But the levels adjusted version now MIGHT stand a chance at a FP, i'd vote for it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a masked version... Tbh I am not a fan of this kind of processing, but if people think it looks better! - Zephyris _Talk 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, i'd put both versions in the nomination and see what people think ;-) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love the subject matter; Leica makes exceedingly fine equipment. I like the composition and lighting; especially the “adjusted levels” version. This has so much going for it. Unfortunately, there is no excuse (IMO) for the depth of field to not have all portions of these lenses in tack-sharp focus. Notwithstanding the high pixel resolution, these aren’t very sharp and I think that will be this picture’s downfall at FPC. If the camera is an auto-everything model, perhaps there is an override to force a longer-duration exposure that will, in turn, force a reduced aperture with more depth of field. It’d hate to hear that the camera at this photographer’s disposal simply doesn’t have what it takes to pull this off sharply. Greg L (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the camera is definately up to it! The DOF problems were just down to techincal limitations - no tripod and quite a faint backlight. I should be able to get a chance to take another shot at it though, this time with a tripod! - Zephyris _Talk 07:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I would prefer the masked version if the shadows weren't quite so apparent. I would support at FPC if this were addressed and it were taken with a tripod for better DOF. You may also try focus stacking. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley Manor river bank[edit]

The fine river and weather makes this photo stunning. The protected manor in the background is part of a British Herritage site, in southern England.

Articles this image appears in: Waverley Abbey

Creator: Jaguar

Suggested by: Jaguar (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Highlights are blown out, specifically the swan, this alone would probably make it not FP quality, also I'm not sure what the focus of the image is, the river or the manor, it seems to lack clear focus on either one subject, without a strong EV case (which I don't think it has in it's current placement) it would have a hard time passing a VP too. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Agree with Raeky above. Try taking the photo closer to sunrise/sunset for better lighting conditions, and pick a more clear focus for the picture to improve composition. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Vincennes launching missile[edit]

It is from an important part in US-Iran relations and is one of the best qualities of the incident.

Articles this image appears in: Iran Air Flight 655, William C. Rogers III

Creator: Dual Freq

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well it looks impressive, but there is a huge ammount of noise and both over and underexposure. The uniqueness of the image may offset this somewhat though... - Zephyris _Talk 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some consideration since it's film photograph in the 80's, which is usually not the greatest era for pictures. I don't think it would have a good chance of passing a FP, although an image of a missile being fired from the same ship near the same time frame as the accident, it would probably be pretty good EV grounds for a VP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Chicago River at night[edit]

I like the composition, but there seems to be too much glare in some places, or an overdone HDR. Should this be toned down, or would that hurt the rest of the image?

Articles this image appears in: Chicago River

Creator: Mike Boehmer

Suggested by: —fetch ·comms 01:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd say EV concerns would probably hold this back at FPC. The image doesn't seem to illustrate Chicago River particularly well. Not only is it buried pretty far down within the article, but it focuses more on what's alongside the river than the river itself. That may be valuable to some, but I'd just say it lacks EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Any time my eyebrows arch at first sight, it’s a good sign someone did something right. Others may cite that it is too artsy, or lacks EV—and they have a point. Nevertheless, I encourage this to go to FPC because it is a stunningly beautiful photo. I have been on the Chicago River during the day and can say that I had no idea it would have nighttime beauty. I think it has *sufficient* EV to speak to the issue of “Chicago River.” Besides, I can say with great confidence that a higher-than-normal percentage of our I.P. readership stop scrolling on the Main Page and be sufficiently captivated by this image to click on it and read up on the Chicago River. That should be our litmus test; it normally gets 350 hits per day. I bet that this article will receive more than its fair share of ratiometric increase in readership because of the stunning beauty of this image. And that would be proof-positive we did the right thing. Well done. Greg L (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! This would make a great poster! Great job! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated (and withdrawn) at FPC. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Jokulsarlon Panorama[edit]

Revision 2 - Panorama of the Jökulsárlón glacial lake in Iceland

A striking panorama. The lighting was just right, and the water was calm.

Articles this image appears in: Jökulsárlón

Creator: Ira Goldstein

Suggested by: Ira Goldstein (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very nice. The upper edge of several icebergs seems a bit overexposed, especially the bright one near the centre of the image, as well as parts of the cloud in the upper left corner. There's also a small jump on the horizon left of centre (which I've annotated) that might be a stitching error. Otherwise it looks great to me. --Avenue (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Avenue. It is a stitch error; Thanks for finding it. I can work on fixing that and the edges of the icebergs. The sun was behind the cloud in the upper left corner; I'm not sure if the original has much detail to tease out. If that is the case, would it be better if I left the cloud as is (or as best as I can get it), or should I crop out a bit of the left side of the image? Thanks. --Ira Goldstein (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was on the right, I would say crop away, but the left edge really helps put it in context. If the cloud can be darkened a bit, I'd prefer to keep it. I don't think detail is really the issue there; it's more the way it glares. --Avenue (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the stitched error, and adjusted levels to minimize overexposed areas. --Ira Goldstein (talk) 2:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Assuming errors are fixed I'd go for it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder