Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Apr-Jun 2012
|
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.
|
This high quality photograph of academic Gilbert Strang was apparently taken by Wikipedia user Sijothankam, and seems like a potential candidate to become a featured picture to me (somewhat tight crop at the top, admittedly). Any other reason why it shouldn't be listed at FPC?
- Articles this image appears in
- Gilbert Strang
- Creator
- Sijothankam
- Suggested by
- A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Quality seems quite good, lighting seems okay, some minor artifacting in the background, but I don't think it's a big issue. Focus is good and pretty much in the right spot, but it's a very shallow DOF, which some voters dislike in portraits. Tight crop as you suggest could be an issue. The other concern I'd have is that it seems a strange pose, in particular how he's holding his mouth. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay... Thanks very much for the feedback! Is it probably not really worth running at FLC then? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say a definite 'no' as voting can be fickle at times and this does have some strong points, while some of the weaknesses are as much a matter of opinion as anything. I'd say if you want to give it a try at FPC go ahead, without expecting too much. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, no harm in trying, I suppose. I'll inform the creator. Thanks very much for the advice! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
Example of town along the German Timber-Frame Road, showing a number of half-timbered buildings.
- Articles this image appears in
- Dornstetten
- Creator
- Traveler100
- Suggested by
- Traveler100 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Now been thru FPC here. --jjron (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
High resolution and the image is independently notable. However, I'm not sure if it's worth putting up for FPC due to the back of someone's head being in the way.
- Articles this image appears in
- The Situation Room (photograph) +10
- Creator
- Pete Souza
- Suggested by
- Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- FWIW, this was at PPR and at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
High resolution, portrait image of a notable vocalist and woman in the Electronic dance music genre
- Articles this image appears in
- Nadia Ali
- Creator
- Tamara Susa
- Suggested by
- MHDH (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Lighting is too bright, blown highlights on her cheeks and most of her face. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty small as well, even if it does just barely meet the size criterion. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
At 11:33 AM, 29 June 2012 local time, a fascinating atmospheric occurrence was pointed out to me. I grabbed my camera and took a shot. Since the wikipedia articles needed some better images on the subject, it seems to have encyclopedic value.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Inversion (meteorology)
Thermocline
Planetary boundary layer
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger
- Suggested by
- TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Interesting atmospheric effect, big issues with the picture is the horizon isn't level with the image, and the sunny part of the sky is blown out, and the dark part is too dark, the last too might be able to be overlooked if the horizon is corrected. It's possible that this could be a FP with adjustments, it all really boils down to EV, is this image the best image for these articles we have? That's a little subjective of a criteria, but if this image is an accurate and important illustration of a thermocline (I don't know much about atmospheric science) then I'd say the article with the most EV is Thermocline and that should be listed first in the FP nomination, seconded by Planetary boundary layer and last Inversion (meteorology) which by it's use in the article indicates it's not contributing much being in a block of images, almost gallery like. — raekyt 15:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- The center of the image is the clouds about a half mile away. The sunny part of the horizon is several miles away. In terms of level horizon, I assume you are talking about the line between Lake Michigan and the sunny part of the horizon being sloped upwards. Is this correct? In terms of EV, I moved the image into a more prominent position in the Inversion (meteorology) article. That is the most important subject in the caption. The atmospheric thermocline is second fiddle to the aquatic one. I think this is the best picture in each article it is in. I forgot to order the articles by EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ya I mean the horizon for the lake, it's clearly not level and that's USUALLY a pretty big sticking point for FP nominations, most people will point it out if it sticks out like a sore thumb, which I feel this one does. It's pretty easy correction to make in Photoshop, I can fix it for you if you want or can't. Let me know. The EV claim for FP's is always a big one to make sure you make it abundantly clear how the image's EV is for the articles, so ordering is important, and making sure it's placed in the best areas of the article. Articles with LOTS of pictures it needs to be clear that it's the best to illustrate the subject out of the bunch. Just some general rules-of-thumb to keep in mind for EV. — raekyt 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thought about making alterations or posting the picture au naturel. When I shot it, I took 9 shots and it was raining heavily just minutes later. A friend pointed out the impending storm and told me to try to practice with my new camera. I popped out the screens in my window and took 9 shots. There were only two that had enough things aligned correctly and in focus to submit. This one has the central buildings close to upright. I made no alterations before posting. I was actually expecting more complaints about the building on the left than the horizon. P.S. I am on the 7th floor so I am about 60 ft above grade and grade is about 10 ft above the level of the surface of Lake Michigan. I imagine some mathematical photographers who know more about the curvature of the surface of the earth can estimate how far away the point on the horizon is where the lake is no longer visible. Also, I am about 400-500 meters from the twin towers in the picture. If you want to adjust the horizon and/or the image on the left, that would be fine, but we must not distort the atmospheric perspective. That is what the image is about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded a modified version, let me know what you think, tried to keep the buildings mostly correct and correct the horizon as much as I can at same time... — raekyt 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am surprised that you uploaded over the original. Should I take this to FPC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it was a FPC nomination already I'd of uploaded another version, but as it is, not even nominated yet, probably isn't a problem with uploading over the original, it could be reverted if someone disagrees with the change, I guess. Probably worth giving it a go at FPC, I'd say. — raekyt 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am surprised that you uploaded over the original. Should I take this to FPC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I uploaded a modified version, let me know what you think, tried to keep the buildings mostly correct and correct the horizon as much as I can at same time... — raekyt 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I thought about making alterations or posting the picture au naturel. When I shot it, I took 9 shots and it was raining heavily just minutes later. A friend pointed out the impending storm and told me to try to practice with my new camera. I popped out the screens in my window and took 9 shots. There were only two that had enough things aligned correctly and in focus to submit. This one has the central buildings close to upright. I made no alterations before posting. I was actually expecting more complaints about the building on the left than the horizon. P.S. I am on the 7th floor so I am about 60 ft above grade and grade is about 10 ft above the level of the surface of Lake Michigan. I imagine some mathematical photographers who know more about the curvature of the surface of the earth can estimate how far away the point on the horizon is where the lake is no longer visible. Also, I am about 400-500 meters from the twin towers in the picture. If you want to adjust the horizon and/or the image on the left, that would be fine, but we must not distort the atmospheric perspective. That is what the image is about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ya I mean the horizon for the lake, it's clearly not level and that's USUALLY a pretty big sticking point for FP nominations, most people will point it out if it sticks out like a sore thumb, which I feel this one does. It's pretty easy correction to make in Photoshop, I can fix it for you if you want or can't. Let me know. The EV claim for FP's is always a big one to make sure you make it abundantly clear how the image's EV is for the articles, so ordering is important, and making sure it's placed in the best areas of the article. Articles with LOTS of pictures it needs to be clear that it's the best to illustrate the subject out of the bunch. Just some general rules-of-thumb to keep in mind for EV. — raekyt 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- The center of the image is the clouds about a half mile away. The sunny part of the horizon is several miles away. In terms of level horizon, I assume you are talking about the line between Lake Michigan and the sunny part of the horizon being sloped upwards. Is this correct? In terms of EV, I moved the image into a more prominent position in the Inversion (meteorology) article. That is the most important subject in the caption. The atmospheric thermocline is second fiddle to the aquatic one. I think this is the best picture in each article it is in. I forgot to order the articles by EV.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have opened Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atmospheric thermocline.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
I consider this image a rare contribution of the split second in which an animal takes food from the still hand of a human. It demonstrates the human interaction with the ecosystem of public parks when humans choose to feed the wildlife. The shot has its drawbacks. I was not expecting the shot and did not have my camera set for motion photography. Thus the extremely rapid movement of the squirrel to snatch the french fry is not as sharp as would be optimal. However, we can see the hand is in focus. Also, I clipped a few whiskers off the back of the tail. However, the rarity of the photo makes up for its foibles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Functional ecology
Human impact on the environment
Environment (biophysical)
Environmental science
Ecosystem
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger
- Suggested by
- TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Cute picture but I don't think Sqwiki the Squirrel has as much of an impact in these articles as say a bear eating out of trash or some other large dangerous animal. Secondly the edge of the backpack in the picture is distracting. I don't think it has a chance of being a FP, sorry. Main reason is there is very minimal EV I think for this picture in these articles, unless they specifically talk about squirrel feeding as a big environmental impact then it's probably not the best example, and the backpack distraction makes it look not professional and more snapshotty. — raekyt 15:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- To add more, I think something like this could be staged pretty easily in a park, with a tripod, and a remote trigger, squirrels from my experience in public parks are plentiful and eager to take food from people who are not threatening them.. heh. The motion blur should be countered with a fill flash, a good overhead EX canon would do wonders for the shot and to sharpen it up, and fix that it was in shadow, and by staging it you can zoom out some and use the high megapixel camera to crop the image in postprocessing to correct any framing issues. If this type of image would be high EV for these articles, then I suggest getting a tripod, flash, and remote trigger to hold in your hand, then spend some time with the squirrels. ;-) With the motion blur, no fill flash (dark subject) and framing issues and backpack, it has no chance of passing FP since it can be easily repeatable with just a little patience and time. — raekyt 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- We could replace the backpack with grass, but I can't adjust for the motion blur after the fact. As the people at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 6 can attest, this was a very spontaneous shot. I was very lucky to get it on my only take. If I were to stage it I would surely set my camera to continuous shooting and hope to get the same split second of full extension by the squirrel and simultaneous possession by the human. Admittedly, this picture needs to be complemented by a do not feed the animals sign or something. I never really thought about why a lot of parks have signs about not feeding the animals until I posted this picture. Sure, it is not the most important disturbance of the ecosystem by humans, but it is non-negligible. If the motion blur is not ignorable, then it won't pass. I am not convinced that the picture is as replaceable as you suggest. Like my current FP, it is something you would think we could replace. Every night for six months a year there are thousands of members of the public with cameras at baseball games. I don't think you will see an image of this split second of nature photography on wikipedia at this quality in the near future. P.S. you vastly underestimate the squirrel noises made by my fellow wikipedian to lure this squirrel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not all parks have such policies, so maybe the animals at that park are a little more people-shy then others. I know at my local city park they are very accustomed to being fed, so getting one, with some practice and time, to eat something out of your hand at the right spot the camera is setup would be fairly doable, might take a day or two of trying, obviously, but doable. Wildlife photography is difficult, either getting them to do what you want, like this example, or just getting a photograph of them. Our resident expert on bird photography, JJ Harrison, would attest at the difficulty of getting some of his bird photographs. Demonstrating the difficulty of the shot doesn't diminish the fact that it's repeatable by someone at maybe a park with more human-accustomed squirrels. But even with the demonstration that it was spontaneous, lucky and difficult to reproduce, not having a fill flash or the backpack would be difficult to overlook, so my opinion is that it can't pass because of those flaws. Do you have an external flash unit for your camera? If not it may be one of the next pieces of equipment to consider, something with a lot more power than the built-in. — raekyt 17:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- We could replace the backpack with grass, but I can't adjust for the motion blur after the fact. As the people at the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 6 can attest, this was a very spontaneous shot. I was very lucky to get it on my only take. If I were to stage it I would surely set my camera to continuous shooting and hope to get the same split second of full extension by the squirrel and simultaneous possession by the human. Admittedly, this picture needs to be complemented by a do not feed the animals sign or something. I never really thought about why a lot of parks have signs about not feeding the animals until I posted this picture. Sure, it is not the most important disturbance of the ecosystem by humans, but it is non-negligible. If the motion blur is not ignorable, then it won't pass. I am not convinced that the picture is as replaceable as you suggest. Like my current FP, it is something you would think we could replace. Every night for six months a year there are thousands of members of the public with cameras at baseball games. I don't think you will see an image of this split second of nature photography on wikipedia at this quality in the near future. P.S. you vastly underestimate the squirrel noises made by my fellow wikipedian to lure this squirrel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- To add more, I think something like this could be staged pretty easily in a park, with a tripod, and a remote trigger, squirrels from my experience in public parks are plentiful and eager to take food from people who are not threatening them.. heh. The motion blur should be countered with a fill flash, a good overhead EX canon would do wonders for the shot and to sharpen it up, and fix that it was in shadow, and by staging it you can zoom out some and use the high megapixel camera to crop the image in postprocessing to correct any framing issues. If this type of image would be high EV for these articles, then I suggest getting a tripod, flash, and remote trigger to hold in your hand, then spend some time with the squirrels. ;-) With the motion blur, no fill flash (dark subject) and framing issues and backpack, it has no chance of passing FP since it can be easily repeatable with just a little patience and time. — raekyt 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Tony, I think this picture is awesome but not quite for the reason you mentioned. What you see here is not just any ecosystem interaction. It is actually much more. This is the domestication of the first rodent the human race will domesticate. Squirrels fill roughly the same urban ecological niche as cats do, except that they are resistant to snow and require more tree. In addition, they have not been domesticated yet. But since we find them to be cute this is just a matter of time. What you see on that picture is the same process that got us dogs, cats, cows, sheep and horses. These species traveled on an evolutionary path that starts as you see in that picture and ends in complete symbiosis with us. And these are the five articles that would gain from having that picture but you will probably have to work hard to find the scholarly papers that claim all that I just did. If we had many pictures of squirrels eating from hands, technical issues would matter. I don't think we do. High EV in my mind drives us all the way home. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 02:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not prepared to say humans are going to domesticate the entire population of squirrels, but this one has been tamed so I included it in that section of domestication. I also think this may be an example of ecological niche. I don't see the relevance to the other three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. there may be a form of symbiosis when humans feed park animals. It is not clear to me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Many rodents have been domesticated and others live in human environments. The activity shown is dangerous - not domestication. Squirrels are wild animals. 75.208.45.156 (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The link to symbiosis and evolutionary path requires the use of a crystal ball. That is why I said it might be hard to find the expert that happened to write that down, even though it seems quite clear to me that this process would start to be visable, in so much as a century or so. It is perfectly reasonable not to want to engage our readers with such speculations. The two placements you did chose to make are very nice, and I feel quite content as it is. Domestication was my key point, and that one is all that really matters. Thank you for taking that picture. As you see, using my crystal ball, I find it quite more valuable than would seem otherwise.
- I am not prepared to say humans are going to domesticate the entire population of squirrels, but this one has been tamed so I included it in that section of domestication. I also think this may be an example of ecological niche. I don't see the relevance to the other three.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
Happened to stumble across this high resolution illustration. It seems to be of a decent quality, and is in the public domain. But I'm not sure whether it has a sufficient enough EV.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nickname
- Creator
- Mackwitz, St. Louis
- Suggested by
- A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- It would hold the most EV for List of U.S. state nicknames, which is a list page, but it could be incorporated probably nicely maybe.. it has very little EV in nickname though and might not be appropriate for the first image, but since no one has changed it yet it may be ok there. If it could be incorporated into the list page appropriately, then it might have a chance as a FP. — raekyt 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
A beautiful shot from an elevation of 1300 mts.
- Articles this image appears in
- Mahabaleshwar
- Creator
- Rishabh Tatiraju
- Suggested by
- Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- It looks nice, the cloud cover and shading may be an issue since the sky is a bit blown out and the shadows from the clouds may be a bit too dark.. intresting pano, I don't note any stitching errors when I looked it over... it's use on the page is a bit wrong, it's too high up and overlaps the right infobox on my screen, so I'd move it several sections down to avoid that. Has a chance, I'd give it a try at FPC and see. ;-) — raekyt 22:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot :) . Will try for FPC. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
Found this image and uploaded, to me looks crisp and like it could be a good FP, certainly not an easy shot to reproduce as not many of us are going to be able to go to the South Pole anytime soon. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Emperor Penguin
- Creator
- Dr. Paul Ponganis of the National Science Foundation
- Suggested by
- Mifter (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- It's a good image, but I question the EV, it's really buried down in the article that is already over-illustrated, and it's not really showing remarkable behavior or clearly showing the animal, the infobox image is one that if it was higher resolution and a little better framed would make an excellent FP, but I have my doubts on this image due to the EV. — raekyt 15:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
This a high quality diagram which clearly illustrates a leading hypothesis for the mechanism for the evolution of multicellular organism.
- Articles this image appears in
- Multicellular organism
- Creator
- Katelynp1
- Suggested by
- Earthdirt (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- These type of images are basically expected to be in SVG format these days, this is PNG. Additionally it would need to be referenced to a reliable source/s on the image page. Article use isn't great - no caption, and wording does not particularly match the section of the article it's in. If those things could all be addressed for starters, we could maybe look again. --jjron (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder
The puppet shown is Muppet-style, and thus what many readers would expect to see in the article, due to familiarity. Most, if not all of the other articles, are either in a puppet theatre, a television studio, or of a street performer; Bleeckie is in a real life scenario, a style popularized by feature film puppetry. Technically, the image is crisp and high-res. Not only this but rod puppets can also made using different scenarios using different characters.
- Articles this image appears in
- Puppet
- Creator
- Leslie Madeline Fleming
- Suggested by
- Zanimum (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Sorry, would stand no chance at FPC. Low res (check FP criteria - minimum is 1000px), low quality image (only 94kb indicates a lot of downsampling). Even if you had a good version of this I doubt it'd have much chance, with the puppet being so cut off, and given that we can see the photographer reflected in the white background it rather spoils it (and I was sure I've seen this nommed somewhere before, but maybe it was something similar). --jjron (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seconder