Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jan-Mar 2012

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

Syzygium malaccense

I think this turned out fairly well, but I'm not sure of the dark background (would be nice if I had a way to give it fill lighting...)

Articles this image appears in: Syzygium malaccense

Creator: Crisco 1492

Suggested by: Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Already been thru FPC here. --jjron (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Queens Window at Saint Hilarion Kalesi

High resolution and quality. Most of the photos of the Queen's window only show the window itself (e.g., [1] and [2]). This photo puts the window in context. I think that I have taken care of all the stiching errors, but would appreciate another set of eyes, as well as any other feedback. Thanks

Articles this image appears in: Saint Hilarion Castle

Creator: Ira Goldstein

Suggested by: Igoldste (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Didn't spot any stitching errors, but the distortion of the stones at left is a bit obvious. My concern is about the lack of EV: I think the picture is good, and it's usually beneficial to have context, but there is only a small mention of the window in the article, and it makes a reference to the great view of the coastline that can be seen from the window. Unfortunately zooming in on that view in this image is of little help because of the haze. Julia\^talk 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Zizula hylax

Best image available.

Articles this image appears in: Zizula hylax

Creator: Jkadavoor (talk)

Suggested by: Jkadavoor (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Belle & Sebastian

This rather charming photograph displays all seven members of indie rock band Belle & Sebastian. There aren't all too many FP of musical groups (just two, by my count), so I feel that this high quality image would be a good addition. The only problem I can see is the horrible, horrible colour of the backdrop - would it be a sticking point at FPC? Thanks again.

Articles this image appears in: Belle & Sebastian

Creator: Marisa Privitera

Suggested by: A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't mind the background, but there are blown highlights on the chair and one of the members is cut off. Also, before going to FPC all seven should be identified in the image description. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see the EV of band members lounging around. I'd much prefer a performance shot or, at least, one with instruments. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Cary Grant

This large, public domain image of actor Cary Grant reminded me quite a lot of File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg, which was promoted to FP back in November. It clearly identifies the subject, and appears to be of a high quality. Any reason why it shouldn't be nominated at FPC? Thanks in advance.

Articles this image appears in: Cary Grant

Creator: RKO publicity photographer

Suggested by: A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

I'd vote support. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs brightening a little. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit added. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now listed Crisco's edit at FPC. How do you close PPRs? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Portrait of Carl Van Vechten Crisco edit.jpg

High quality, good pose. Wondering if the clean-up so far is enough.

Articles this image appears in: Carl Van Vechten

Creator: Carl Van Vechten, edited by User:jjron and User:Crisco 1492

Suggested by: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd crop out the white lines visible at the edges of all four sides (most noticeable at left). Julia\^talk 09:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll get on that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Millennium PBD

It's a photograph which shows the world's largest bus station, hence deserves a Featured Picture. However, I have a few doubts because the FPC states that licensing has to be "free", and I'm not very sure whether this photo meets that criteria.

I added a second alternative for pushing to FP status. Which one is more acceptable? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 17:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Millennium Park Bus Depot

Creator: Ankitbhatt

Suggested by: ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 05:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think the licence is fine if it is on commons, however I don't think either image will pass FPC. The second's resolution is too low, so it is automatically excluded. Both need work on the composition. The field of view just seems too narrow. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Che Guevara

Extremely iconic image. Not quite sure if the quality is up to par.

Articles this image appears in: Che Guevara, Guerrillero Heroico, and dozens more

Creator: Alberto Korda

Suggested by: Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I checked this one out myself with an eye on nomming it about 6mths ago and concluded no. --jjron (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning that way as well. 200kb is not exactly the size you'd expect for a file of that resolution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

John Juanda

Good quality, fairly sharp. Interesting pose

Articles this image appears in: John Juanda

Creator: Matt Waldron

Suggested by: Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

White balance and background noise need fixing. I think people won't like the headphones though. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The headphones were one of the reasons I considered this first (the other was the water bottle). No information in the article if it's a habit of his or not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

KitchenAid Pro 500 Stand Mixer

Found this image on Flickr whilst trawling for images to improve the KitchenAid article with. Was surprised to find such a high quality image, and I'll freely say that I know next to nothing about the FP process, but thought that this might be suitable.

Articles this image appears in: KitchenAid

Creator: g2boojum on Flickr

Suggested by: Miyagawa (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

People are usually pretty picky with static objects in a studio setting. I don't think the lighting is good - the front is dark. The background is distracting. I'd probably leave it. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Arizona (BB39) Port Bow, Underway

High EV and good quality, we can also use an alternative crop instead, whichever suits better.

Articles this image appears in: None atm, could be used in USS Arizona (BB-39)

Creator: Unknown

Suggested by: ■ MMXX ^talk 23:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/USS Arizona (BB-39) ■ MMXX ^talk 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Darjeeling Himalayan Railway

Batasia Loop, Darjeeling N.F.Railway, Photograph by Vikramjit Kakati

Picture is very good. I think it has good EV. Please evaluate this and make this a candidate for FPC. Note; I'm not the creator of this Pic. I'm merely submitting it here.

Articles this image appears in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Frontier_Railway_Zone_%28India%29

Creator: Vikramjit Kakati

Suggested by: Vijayrajah (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think that the train is a bit too incidental to the photograph to have the required EV (encyclopaedic value) in most articles. It is a pretty picture though. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~By the way, the photo has a fairly large digital watermark.~~ O.J. (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watermarking issue resolved thanks to Jbarta. O.J. (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some further investigation I noticed that the photo originally comes from Panoramio, where it is copyrighted by its creator. So this might be a copyvio. O.J. (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Kirchner marzo 2007 Congreso

I want to know if there is image noise or some other problem with this file, before actually nominating it

Articles this image appears in: Néstor Kirchner, Presidency of Néstor Kirchner (and others)

Creator: Víctor Hugo Bugge

Suggested by: Cambalachero (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Shot at ISO 1000 there may have been some inherent image noise, but the main issue is that it's been overly compressed leading to some pretty visible JPEG artifacting; that's probably mixing with the original noise to make it look disappointing at full res. You can't access a less compressed version can you? --jjron (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this photo was taken from a web page that released their photos under a free licence, I did not take it myself (it is not inside my camera). Do you think I should ask for help at the Photography workshop? If the noise is too much to fix, I may drop the issue, I don't want to bother anyone with impossible tasks Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit of noise you can often work with, though often with the side effect of losing detail, which is why people will often do a selective noise reduction on the background only where the details aren't important. The problem here is twofold or even threefold. The issue is more artifacting than noise; this means that through excessive compression when this was saved some of the original detail the image would have had has been lost - there is no way you can get this back other than going to back to the original and starting again. The other problem is that it is perhaps most significant on the subject of the image, the man himself (check his suit coat for example); applying any sort of 'correction' to that will therefore remove even more detail, and I have to say that for whatever reason - could be to do with slight focus issue, lower quality lens, difficult lighting, or the ISO and compression settings, or possibly a combination of these and more - I don't think he has a real lot of detail even now, like in terms of the detail on his face, so I don't think it can afford to lose any more. You could get someone to give it a try, but I don't really like the chances of seeing much improvement. Alternatively you could try nomming as is at FPC and just see how it goes. Or email the site if they have contact details and ask if they could provide a higher res version. --jjron (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder