Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jul-Sep 2009

WP:PPRA

Please cut and paste nominations to be archived from the Picture peer review mainpage to the top of the appropriate archive page, creating a new archive (by nomination date) when necessary.

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

Phenakistoscope

Original disc

Detailed view

Mirror simulation

Spinning disc

This is something of a unique case; two of these have been featured individually (the spinning disc and mirror simulation), personally, I am a believer of FP Sets so I am bringing it up as such. The case for the other two being added is, firstly, the stationary disc provides the potential for examination at the viewers leisure and offers significantly greater detail than does the spinning disc. Secondly, the image sans mirror simulation provides a full view of the dancers and animation thus offering a different EV than the other version. Should this move to the candidates section I will work to add the images to more articles.

Articles this image appears in: Eadweard Muybridge, Phenakistoscope and many others, note that not all appear together or in the same articles; this is addressed below.

Creator: Eadweard Muybridge

Suggested by: Cowtowner 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

IMO if two are featured that's enough. Don't see enough extra EV in the other two to justify them as separate FPs, and many people believe featured sets to be rubbish. FWIW, from what I see File:Phenakistoscope 3g07690a.gif is featured on German WP, not here. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Historical panorama of Beirut

This demonstrates an era where panoramic photography debuted, and emphasis on the history of the city.

Articles this image appears in: Beirut

Creator: Maison Bonfils, Stitching and retouching by Banzoo

Suggested by: Banzoo (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Georgia

Fantastic picture, lovely colours, greatly enhances the articles it appears in

Articles this image appears in: Grytviken, Cumberland East Bay, Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands work group, Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and see also derivative work at South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Creator: Hgrobe

Suggested by: Cavie78 (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think the sharpness is there to get it successfully past a FP nomination. when you zoom in it seems to be mostly out of focus, also generally shots like this for FP are done as composites to make very large images from multiple smaller ones, to give you that sharpness. Also note that the colors for the foliage seem muted and not very vibrant. A good picture but probably not FP quality. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 09:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other key problem is that it's been overly downsampled, leaving quite visible compression artifacts. If this was done poorly it may also have impacted sharpness. If the creator was a Wikipedian perhaps a higher quality version could be requested, but sharpness still may not be sufficient even after editing. Appears to be a bit of lens distortion too. Otherwise agree though that it's a very good shot. Given the location (relatively rare for us to get photos from here I expect) it could be suitable for Valued Pictures. --jjron (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't this failed at least 2 FP noms? I certainly remember at least one, and I'm sure a comment was made that it failed before as well... Gazhiley (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't specifically remember it and it doesn't show up in the file links. Would have had to have been an alt version, or perhaps it was on Commons (though doesn't show up in the links there either)? --jjron (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Green-cheeked Parakeet

Image is reasonably high resolution, the subject is in sharp focus, and has great EV. My only real concern would be composition - the second parakeet partially in-frame may be distracting.

Articles this image appears in: Green-cheeked Parakeet

Creator: Flickr user, Brandon Lim; Uploaded by Snowmanradio

Suggested by: ∙ AJCham^(talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The bar for bird FPs is pretty high. IMO this would stand little chance if for no other reason than the tail feathers are cutoff. As you say that other bird may raise concerns, and personally I don't find the background (a roof of some type) appealing. In general it's quite a good photo, but not FP material. BTW the creator is not Snowmanradio, he simply took it off Flickr, did an edit and uploaded here - the creator is the flickr user Brandon Lim according to the image page. --jjron (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Extermination of Evil

This is a high resolution image of a National Treasure of Japan.

Articles this image appears in: List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

Creator: Bamse

Suggested by: bamse (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Historical images like this generally stand a good chance, it's very high resolution which is what would be needed. I'd give it a FP try. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbolt belly landing

The high res photo clearly demonstrates a belly landing.

Articles this image appears in: Belly landing

Creator: U.S. Air Force photo/Brad White

Suggested by: Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 22:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd say this has a reasonable chance. The sky is a tad light and the legs of the soldier on the right are a little distracting. Overall it is pretty good and has enc value in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it just me being picky or is there also a slight DOF issue with the right (our left) wing tip? Seems blurred to me... That said though, this is a relatively rare occurance, and therefore the EV of this outweighs the minor issues such as torso-less soldier, and slight blurr. Gazhiley (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Katrin Siska

Looks like one of the finest images of living persons in Commons, but needs some retouching like glow removal

Articles this image appears in: Katrin Siska

Creator: Indrek Galetin

Suggested by: Brand[t] 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Personally I doubt this would pass. The messy background would work strongly against it, and overall composition isn't that convincing, e.g., that awkwardly intruding hand and the disembodied elbow at right. There's some weird light effects, perhaps what you're referring to as 'glow'. There's the red halo around her head, also present around the necklace/gold sash thing and on her top, and that weird yellow over that intruding hand. I don't think you could adequately fix those. At 1/8s I'd say motion blur is a factor. Also comes up a bit soft perhaps, probably due to the same thing. Flash reflections may also be regarded as too harsh. --jjron (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed such flaws, but wonder whether they could be dispersed through retouching with some crop. Brand[t] 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could crop out the elbow say, but the hand obscures her hand and part of her body, so it would be a heavy crop to remove that. And you couldn't crop out that weird lighting unless you basically just cropped into her face. --jjron (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Asian University

File:AsianUniversity-3.jpg

Original - Asian University (Thailand) front entrance.

this is an authentic picture of Asian University and looks good, too.

Articles this image appears in: Asian University

Creator: mejones

Suggested by: User:Mejones:mejones 01:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Mount Rushmore

Obvious EV and quality. The post here is to get a trusted user to edit that pages in question to update the link as they are protected. I believe it is a clear improvement over previous versions.

Articles this image appears in: Mount Rushmore, South Dakota

Creator: Dean Franklin

Suggested by: Cowtowner 05:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Subway Map

I'd like to get some feedback on the design, and whether it should be submitted to fpc/vpc.

Articles this image appears in: New York City Subway List_of_New_York_City_Subway_stations

Creator: User:countZ

Suggested by: CountZ (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Mounted Police, Victoria

It clearly demonstrates the type of equipment used by the Australian mounted police force.

Articles this image appears in: Mounted Police

Creator: Simpsons fan 66

Suggested by: Simpsons fan 66 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It saddens me that in my country taking this would have been illegal. This is a great picture, excellent EV and great composition --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried to see if I could recognise any of these officers in the news reports of the interactions with the protesters, but wasn't sure. Regardless, this is a pretty good quality photo. I have provided an edit which addresses some possible issues. Corrected what looks to be a tilt, but hard to get it right as that fence behind isn't level - I took the verticals as being vertical, but the horizontals still tilt, so perhaps it's on a slight hill. Also did a bit of a correction on levels, backed off some highlights and sharpened it (it looked a bit soft). There are some blown highlights, the worst being the face shield on the 2nd policeman from the left. There's also quite a lot of blown highlights in the green channel on the reflective vests but I don't think that's too much of an issue. Have also transferred my edit to Commons (hope you don't mind). My biggest concerns at FPC would probably be that the size is getting towards the small size, and while it's quite informative it's not that dynamic, i.e., it may have been more exciting with a bit of action going on. Nonetheless, possibly worth giving a try. --jjron (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for taking the time. It was in fact on a slight hill. If the image is too small, I have the original in 10 megapixel quality (3456x2304). What would be a good size to get it to? --Simpsons fan 66 07:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I didn't know whether this was a crop out of an original or just a downsized original. They generally say 'the bigger the better', but plenty of FPCs still pass at around 1600 x 1067 px, so this isn't that far below that - it certainly is within requirements (minimum size is 1000px on at least one side). If it's downsized I suspect the original may be a bit soft even after sharpening (that second policeman's face in particular almost looked to have a slight motion blur, though not sure at 1/500s shutter speed), but that could work against it. Just out of interest's sake, what lens were you using? --jjron (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. It's my parents camera. Cheap one I think. So should I nominate your version or the original? --Simpsons fan 66 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The camera's not too bad, but it's possibly just a kit lens, which don't do the cameras justice. Personally I would suggest to nominate the edit if you want to nominate one, but it's up to you to decide. --jjron (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cassio Carved Bridge

**Original** - The "Carved Bridge" at Cassiobury Park.

Clear picture. Unusual subject.

Articles this image appears in: Cassiobury Park

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 12:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment Per all other comments, non of these images will pass at FPC because of the timestamp. Although the general composition is good the camera you are using is far too poor to take reasonable quality images. --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I turn the time stamp off, do you think I can take a stab at FC? --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 15:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the particular camera you are using there is almost 0% chance. You obviously are getting the hang of composing an image well but that is not the problem. The problem is the blurred, out of focus and small images your camera produces --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per Childzy. Please refer to the extensive comments I left on your talkpage before you put these images up. I also commented below that you would not be able to get an FP with this camera, and there's been at least two previous comments about the timestamp. Am starting to wonder whether you are even reading the replies, or at least bothering to take any of the advice on board. --jjron (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Casiobury Park sunset

**Original** - The sun setting at Cassiobury Park.

This image show a striking image of the sun setting against the backdrop of Cassiobury Park.

Articles this image appears in: Cassiobury Park

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 12:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Refer to comments elsewhere, here for example. --jjron (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Plain from a train

**Original** - A barren plantation field. This picture was taken from the window of a British Rail Class 350.

Just wanted a "review" of the picture. It's better than any of my other submission and this has been digitally enhanced by Adobe Photoshop.

Articles this image appears in: none. Just wanted a review

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 11:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

How about this image? This image seem clear to me. And the watermark can be cropped out. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quality is still too poor, and appears to be badly tilted. As we've already said a number of times, this camera will not produce FP quality images. It would have to be of something absolutely mindblowing, and even then it would be called into question. And what article do you propose this would go in? It's pretty generic, so EV would also be in doubt, even if it was of top quality. --jjron (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sharecroppers in Green County, Georgia - June, 1941

High-quality, beautifully composed, visually illustrative, free image, semi-famous photographer

Articles this image appears in: Sharecropping

Creator: United States Office of War Information

Suggested by: Cadastral (Talk) 23:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs looking at by User:Durova possibly wont pass as is but even a crop removing the things at the side could do. However the user I suggested fully restores these types of photos --Childzy ¤ Talk 00:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Left margin contains registration marks and a small amount of metadata/stock info that'd be hard to justify omitting for aesthetics. Perhaps a second version? Cadastral (Talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No honestly check out her images, shes restored over 250 images. Basically its not illustrating metadata/stock info so that doesnt need to be in the picture. Also the scratches and lines can be removed. See this image compared to this image --Childzy ¤ Talk 08:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And we've hit upon an interesting and contentious issue faced frequently by archivists; at which point is it prudent to subordinate fidelity for aesthetics (or expediency, or technological limitation, or prevailing best-practices, and on and on)? I'm inclined to believe that restraint, in this and similar cases, is a virtue. Many, many people can use a clone-stamp tool or healing brush--and by all means let them do this, if their purpose requires it--but nobody, nobody can undo a destructive edit. It is not the right call in this case, in my opinion. Prioritizing small, step-wise increases in perceived quality at the expense of preserving fidelity seems short-sighted in light of the potential benefits of a minimally-processed image. Anyone can "fix" it, nobody can "un-fix" it.Cadastral (Talk) 09:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not like the original would actually be altered. And we keep the un-edited picture around too. That's the beauty of digital restoration: you can fix things without worrying about ruining the original. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do what you think is right --Childzy ¤ Talk 14:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hurricane Elena

I'm honestly very impressed with this picture. It shows a very clear view of just about the entire storm, and very descriptive in that it shows the cloud tops and curvature of the Earth. I'm surprised this image isn't featured yet. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Hurricane Elena, List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States

Creator: Nilfanion (edited by Good kitty)

Suggested by: Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I dont mind this image but I would point out issues why it might not pass, it is slightly cropped on the right, doesnt seem focused/sharp (i say this in comparison to other featured storm images) also there are hairs/marks on the photo. I'd get some other peoples views before taking mine to seriously because i havent voted on all that many storm FP's --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to this just closed nom - you could expect a similar response. Basically, for most people one storm looks pretty much like another and we already have a few featured. Refer to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather for other featured storms - in particular this image reminds me a lot of , which is already featured. FWIW the creator is "Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center", which we'd usually abbreviate to NASA. --jjron (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Black Moor fish closeup

This photograph illustrates in a clear way the typical protruding eyes of this goldfish breed and other details of its anatomy rarely noticeable in other photos or even to the naked eye. It also shows an unusual point of view, giving an opportunity for a virtual face-to-face encounter with this alien-looking animal.

Articles this image appears in: Black Moor

Creator: ﻯναოթ€ռ

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This was orginal suggested by ﻯναოթ€ռ. It was place in the wrong plac so I moved it. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Y I like this striking close up of the Black Moor fish. The picture is clear and in focus. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think this would pass as an FP, I dont mind the composition but the size of the image as well as problems with shooting through glass means its not as good an image as could be taken --Childzy ¤ Talk 12:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, agree. It's quite a good shot, but even at this small size which just barely meets FPC requirements quality is not quite there - it's not bad quality, but it's not really good either. As tends to be the case with compacts the flash hasn't helped the attractiveness of the image/colouring. The setting also just looks rather artificial to me too, sometimes that is and sometimes that isn't an issue. --jjron (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your comments and feedback. As you probably know, photos through glass are very difficult to shoot, and it is especially so when it comes to photos of aquaria (which accounts for the limited number of decent aquaria photos available). There is little possibility to control the light and fish (obviously) don't stay still or pose for you. I originally took this picture for documentary reasons because I could not find one that illustrated these animals to this detail. I do think this photo is of some documentary help. As for the background looking artificial, it is actually live plants in the aquarium. The photo was not post-processed, the plants are truly this bright green even out of water.ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My comment on the background looking artificial was referring to it clearly looking like it was taken in an aquarium rather than in a 'natural' setting - I wasn't meaning to imply the plants looked plastic, etc. Similarly shots of animals tend to get opposed if they look like they're taken in a zoo - they can be taken there, they just shouldn't look like it :-). Yes, it is hard to shoot through glass, but that's what helps distinguish an FP. Check out some other fish FPs at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish, most of which are also taken in aquariums - you'll notice that generally the glass has been taken out as a factor, backgrounds tend to look more natural, and they don't suffer from the harsh flash lighting. I agree this is a good photo and good composition, but I don't think it's featured quality. You can still nominate if you wish, or alternatively you could try it at VP where the technical issues aren't so important. --jjron (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for sharing the link to the featured fish photos, that is definitely high quality material. I'll use it as a future reference to improve the quality of my pictures. ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Have added an edit which I think provides some improvements to the image. It's still not featured quality, but I think a bit better. --jjron (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Comments

Dusky Leaf Monkey

Technically sound and good depiction of the subject.

Articles this image appears in: Lutung, Dusky_Leaf_Monkey

Creator: User:Robertpollai

Suggested by: Robertpollai (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I support this image. It shows a good shot of the Dusky Leaf Monkey. The image is clear and in focus. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 15:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Often, pictures like this are opposed for being cut-off and not showing the entire animal, since that hurts encyclopedic value (EV). Makeemlighter (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way do you have a picture that shows the FULL monkey? That might have made a better image. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makeemlighter makes a valid point, but I still like this. Another issue could be the blown highlights (or near to) especially on the left shoulder and top of his head, and it's maybe a tad tightly cropped at the top. Nonetheless I suggest giving it a try at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think its important to have a full picture of this monkey. Its tail is one of the more recognizable features as its pale color contrasts the rest of the body. However, a point could be made that it would be difficult to get a tight shot of the monkey's face while still including the tail because of the tail's length.--Zulualpha (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'll vote for it, its a great shot. However some wont like the crop as mentioned above. Let us know if you have an uncropped --Childzy ¤ Talk 23:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Downtown Los Angeles, California

I took this photo myself. I was driving in traffic last week. I tried to improve the photo. I like to know if this is a good photo of Downtown Los Angeles.

Articles this image appears in: Los Angeles

Creator: D climacus

Suggested by: David | ^Talk 23:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Biggest problem is size and composition, its not really specifically showing anything. For me it doesnt illustrate what i would imagine down town LA to be. If u were on a bridge nearer the heart of LA and got a lot more in the image it may have more EV--Childzy ¤ Talk 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with childzy. This doesn't have much encyclopedic value (EV) in Los Angeles. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I would have to agree with both childz and makeemlighter. The composition simply show a busy carrage way. This could have taken place in any city with high rise buildings. This image could have been improved if it was taken from a bridge or from above. This would have been a better choice
Panorama of Los Angeles as viewed from Mulholland Drive. Left to right: Santa Ana Mountains, downtown, Hollywood (foreground), Wilshire Boulevard, Port of Los Angeles, Palos Verdes Peninsula, Santa Catalina Island, and LAX
--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW David you need to focus on some basic quality issues - I noted some at your FPC nom, and the same issues apply here. Both these images have had a significant tilt - you need to get your camera straight (perhaps use a tripod) or straighten the images in post-processing. You're also downsampling too much if you are serious about getting FPs - this barely meets size requirements and has been downsampled to just 158kb which will almost inevitably result in insufficient quality. To be entirely honest though you will be struggling to get FP quality images with this camera in any case, you would need to get something really good to compensate for the image quality, a generic shot like this would never have a chance. You also need to supply far better image page information (saying "New Photo for Wikipedia" is frankly useless), and you should be uploading to Commons. If you don't understand any of this just ask and I'll clarify further. And keep working on it! --jjron (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

British Rail Class 350 connection

**Original** - Two British Rail Class 350 4-car units at Wolverhampton joined together to form an 8 car set. This train is bound for London Euston.

This picture clearly show the connection between two British Rail Class 350 units joining together. If can think of a better reason please add it here

Articles this image appears in: British Rail Class 350

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 08:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lighting is not very good and the timestamp is definitely a no-no --Muhammad(talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

B90 at Pantoon Dock

**Original** - A B90 Docklands Light Railway rolling stock pulled into Pontoon Dock DLR station. This train is headed towards London City Airport DLR station.

Because it is a beautifully taken shot of the B90 Docklands Light Railway rolling stock that have pulled into Pontoon Dock DLR station.

Articles this image appears in: Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 08:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Refer to comments at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Stafford station. Basically the same issues apply. Composition-wise it's not too bad. --jjron (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

British Rail Class 378 Richmond

This picture show an excellent shot of the new British Rail Class 378 train.

Articles this image appears in: British Rail Class 378

Creator: User:Sunil060902

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 07:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Stafford railway station and British Rail Class 350

**Original** - A British Rail Class 350 in London Midland livery pulled into Stafford railway station.

**Alternative**-Stafford railway station.

**Alternative**-Stafford railway station looking south.

**Alternative** -A London Midland run British Rail Class 350 pulled into Stafford railway station. This train is headed towards Crewe railway station.

It shows a beautiful shot of Stafford railway station with a British Rail Class 350, operated by London Midland, pulled in. The alternative show a shot of Stafford railway station without the British Rail Class 350.

Articles this image appears in: Stafford railway station.

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 07:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

With the subject being the station, we really don't see enough of it. Too narrow a field of view - could be pretty much anywhere. You'd need to get an aerial shot or panorama I think to have any chance at FPC/VPC. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you can see the sign on the small wagon that reads Welcome to Stafford station. Additionally I have another two version of this station without the train and one looking south. Check out my gallery. Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that this is where you say it is, and it may add to the article quite reasonably, but in terms of FPC there's just not enough there. To put it in simple terms, I could go out to my local major city and reproduce about a hundred shots of similar views and better quality in a day. So for something so common it needs something special, some 'wow', to have a chance at FPC - a small wagon that says Welcome to Stafford station that you really can't even read is not a wow. --jjron (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the composition there are lots of technical problems with the image, the sky is overexposed and there is a lot of motion blur or soft parts of the image --Childzy ¤ Talk 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest these alternative picture. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 10:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alts basically have similar issues. Overexposed skies, blurriness, generally poor quality (the fourth one for example is terribly blurred). If I'm not mistaken these are taken with a mobile phone camera? Sorry, but unless you're photographing aliens landing at Buckingham Palace, you aren't going to be getting an FP using that. FWIW I think the third one is the most engaging and best overall if you're looking for one to use in the article. --jjron (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Two DLR models next to each other

**Original** - Two B07 rolling stock next to an older B92 rolling stock at the Poplar DLR depot next to Poplar DLR Station.

It shows two B07 rolling stock next to an older B92 rolling stock at the Poplar DLR depot next to Poplar DLR Station. That way the users can see the difference between the two DLR rolling stock models.

Articles this image appears in: Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

Creator: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 07:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 07:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not meaning to be offensive, but in terms of composition this is a bit of a mess and would not pass either at FPC or VPC. We only get to the subject of the picture after crossing the rail-lines, going through the carpark and getting behind the fence. I can't see the difference between these models because I can barely see them, especially the second one. While this may be of use in lieu of anything better, you'd need a far clearer image than this to be viable for FPC/VPC. (And BTW, turn the date stamp "OFF" on your camera.) --jjron (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Whitehall Traffic

I think the photo represents an accurate and creative display of a typical London street scene with both double-decker buses and Big Ben included in the photo. It is a very realistic shot that helps visually explain Whitehall street, as well as a remote view of the clock tower. In addition, it's well balanced and visually appealing. I am just looking for feedback regarding the photo and seeing if it meets the high standards of a VPC or FPC. I have another version of this photo that has the buses cropped out more and focuses more on Big Ben. I also have one that has a black shadow on the corners which creates a very nice contrast but I wasn't sure if that was acceptable editing for Wikipedia. Any feedback is appreciated.

Articles this image appears in: Whitehall,Big Ben

Creator: Joseph Plotz

Suggested by: Flyer84 (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your nomination here. While this provides a good street scene as you suggest, there are several issues which would prevent it being featured. The primary problem is composition - while it shows the buses, the two most dominant ones in the foreground are badly cut-off. You'd need to really hit the timing or use a wider angle lens and get the buses in full view to have much chance at FPC I feel. Excluding that, EV for Big Ben is not that high, because as you say yourself it is a remote view - and we already have high res FPs of Big Ben. BTW the image is also tilted about 1° CCW. There are some other technical issues such as image noise that would also count against it. The version with the 'black shadows' you mention sounds like vignetting and is not very well received at FPC. Hope that helps a bit. --jjron (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Photos by Keith Allison

Keith Allison has listed over 300 freely licensed, high res and quality jpg's at Commons. I want some advice from you folks before going ahead with work to dig through the stacks of photos and find the gems to nominate at FPC. Gallery of some example photos I think are particularly good shown below, the Zack Greinke image is perhaps the best of what I've looked through so far.

Articles this image appears in: Zack Greinke

Creator: commons:Category:MLB photos taken by Keith Allison

Suggested by: Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Guthrie
Mariano Rivera
Joe Mauer
Chad Bradford (EV is probably in Submarine (baseball))
Chien-Ming Wang

Comments

Some of these look pretty good at a quick glance. Not knowing much about baseball players I assume they're all notable players? I don't really think we should feature images of some guy with a three game career for example. Not overly sure about the cutoff legs on Guthrie. I find the Bradford one too bright on the shirt, haven't checked, but it looks partly blown or close to. Would the clipped toe on Wang be an issue? And details on image pages seem a bit light on. --jjron (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Aso Naka dake

Artistic photograph of very seldom seen event. The crater is visible on a few times a year because of gases.

Articles this image appears in: Mount Aso

Creator: Igorberger

Suggested by: Igor Berger (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think this will pass at FPC due to motion blur (or lack of sharpening) but this definitely has EV for VPC. I'd say give it a go. Zoo Fari 22:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Khoisan man in Namibia

Well, I've never thought of nominating an image for FP before, but this image has always struck me as an evocative portrait. I just noticed the absurd number of articles in which it appears and it is decent resolution, so was wondering what people think of its chances.

Articles this image appears in: Africa, Black people, Sub-Saharan Africa, Indigenous peoples, Khoisan, Hunter-gatherer, Historical ecology, Haplogroup A (Y-DNA), Survival International, Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957, Georgiy Starostin

Creator: Ian Beatty from Amherst, MA, USA

Nominated by: Banyan Tree 13:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unfortunately, most of his face is in shadow. That would probably be enough to prevent it from passing at FPC. This is such a good picture, though. It would probably be a shoo-in for VP. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption could explain what the pole-shaped object behind him is. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

Thanks to you both for your feedback. Unfortunately, I don't know if that stick behind him is anything other than a stick. - Banyan Tree 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the image page caption: "A San (Bushman) who gave us an exhibition of traditional dress and hunting/foraging behaviour" I assumed it was probably a spear. --jjron (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Elie, Manitoba tornado

I read through the featured picture criteria, and it seems to match them all, but having never done this before I'm requesting advice to see if it is suitable for FPC.

Articles this image appears in: Elie, Manitoba tornado

Creator: Justin1569

Nominated by: Ks0stm ^(T•C) 03:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's a fascinating picture, and well executed given the very difficult conditions. However, I don't think it's good enough for FP status. The background sky is overexposed, while the contrast of the foreground and main subject are quite poor. Fixing the latter issue only worsens the former issue. Also, there are sharpness/noise problems with all of the foreground detail. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would agree with most of the above. Have been tossing this one up a bit. Quality is not great, but then again shooting conditions for something like this are not great either! I see this was recently promoted on Commons. Standards here tend to be a bit higher, but it's the type of thing that may be worth trying, though I would make no guarantees towards success. --jjron (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The blown sky bothers me. Do you have a raw original, or another shot, under-exposed, that could be used to improve it via HDR (and contrast reduction, not tone mapping)? This is why all photos should be exposure bracketed. And shot raw. —Darxus (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have it, uploader Justin1569 was the one who took the pictures, so he would be the one to ask...however based on his contributions (name links to them in this comment), he seems to have been inactive since 2007. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 14:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - HDR tends to work best on static subjects, and this camera is unlikely to support Raw. FWIW HDR imagery has its uses, but is more often than not poorly done and unnecessary. --jjron (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Boston (band)

This picture has great lighting and is obviously made by a professional photographer. Shows all but one member (which may make it disqualified for VP), but all other members are shown, along with equipment.

Articles this image appears in: Boston

Creator: Weatherman90

Nominated by: ^TheWeak_Willed 13:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Quite a nice shot of the band with quite good EV, very good at smaller sizes. However it's unlikely to succeed at FPC for a number of reasons. Some key things would a lot of image noise, lack of sharpness, significant motion blur on some of the artists, and not quite ideal framing which cuts off the bottom of the stage and feet of the performers (given the dimensions I'd say this has been cropped on height, so either there should be a version that shows this stuff, or it was originally framed with the feet cut-off). I'm interested why you say "obviously made by a professional photographer"? Given the camera used alone I'd wouldn't have thought so... Incidentally, looking at the creator's userpage, they've got some really good photographic contributions to the music area. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Burnley at Wembley

I like the look of the image, think its colourful and represents the carnival occasion that cup finals are. Its also reasonably historically significant as its the day one of the founding members of the football league returned to the biggest sporting league in the world. My main problem is I would like to know what 'type' of balloon article it could be placed in or other articles it would add value to.

Articles this image appears in: Burnley

Creator: Childzy ¤ Talk 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Childzy ¤ Talk 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To be honest I'm not seeing a lot of EV, it looks to be mainly a big Coke advertisement. Image page is severely lacking. BTW this is in Burnley F.C. but not Burnley. Perhaps could be used in Banner, in particular in the Advertising section. --jjron (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

River Mawddach panorama

View of regional geography from estuary to mountain.

Articles this image appears in: River Mawddach

Creator: Traveler100

Nominated by: Traveler100 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is this good enough for FPC?--Traveler100 (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt a bad image but the colour doesn't seem right to me, also i think the sky is over exposed. Editing might improve it but it would most likely fail at FPC because the image isn't large enough in terms of pixel height to see much detail --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could increase the size and detail of the image but unfortunately cannot do anything about the over exposed sky.--Traveler100 (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the sky would be unrecoverable, and given how prominent it is in the image, would be enough to do it in at FPC. You've done a good job on the pano, but I'd also say that given this purports to show the river, a heck of a lot of the image doesn't show river. I assume you've tried to capture right down to the mouth at far right, but there's an awful lot of no river behind that hill/prominence before the mouth. Is a better vantage point possible? --jjron (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Kings Park

In correcting the exposure for the foreground (the light deteriorated noticeably when taking this) Hugin left the upper right sky blown #ffffff white. There's also a few annoying exposure seams. How would I go about fixing these problems?

(Oh, I've just realized the cut off building on the LHS - I'll lose that on the next upload.) MER-C 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Not quite ready for prime time

Creator: myself

Nominated by: MER-C 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Probably not really answering your questions, but was that section of sky blown in your original images, or has hugin done that for you to try to blend it? TBH I can't help but think you've got the timing a bit wrong, or if not then the camera settings a bit out. The foreground comes up too dark as you suggest, but that's not balanced by say having nice lighting on or in the buildings. Also wonder how quickly you took your originals? You need to try to do them pretty quick, especially when you're in fast changing lighting as you say you were here, or in my experience you won't get it to blend properly. Also not sure if you've noticed, but the whole thing, or at least the main section of the city, has a slight clockwise tilt. It also strikes me as a bit unsharp, I'm wondering if you used a tripod (though with the blur on the headlights I spose you must have), but it probably looks more like a slight motion blur to me rather than anything else and it's not necessarily consistent across the image so may have varied with the various shots (in which case did you use manual shutter release with a slow shutter speed perhaps, where you may have 'bumped' the camera a bit on some shots?). --jjron (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try reducing the contrast of the input image for the right side before hugening? —Darxus (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exposure blending or HDR is the solution. I can't tell you how to do that in hugin though. Your camera should be in manual. Take two stop bracketed exposures if the dynamic range is big. Gives you a better chance in post processing. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

F-22 Supersonic Flyby

You have a identifiable underside silhouette of the F-22 Raptor, plus the added Vapor cone (not a Sonic boom) and contrails which greatly enhances the plane itself. It appears to have been modified from the original source. There is a similar image in the Sonic boom article, but it appears to be another angle done by a Air Force Photographer (if the boilerplate on that image is correct). I believe the Navy version is much superior to the Air Force version.

Articles this image appears in: F-22 Raptor

Creator: Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kyle Steckler, U.S. Navy

Nominated by: 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

They're the same image - the metadata is identical. They have just been edited differently. Perhaps the origins of this need to be sorted out first? --jjron (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would believe the Navy site, but then again...--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y Support. I believe this image would make a good FI (Feature Image) It shows a striking image of a F-22 with it's sonic boom. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 09:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's transonic, the clouds are due to the Prandtl-Glauer Singularity, not the sonic boom. Sonic booms exist at the nose and tail of supersonic aircraft, or at locations of supersonic flow for transonic aircraft. Marimvibe (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be modified to the proper "Boom" if the image goes to FI. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

===A nice church in Annandale, Sydney===

I need advise on how to improve some of the Sydney suburban images. It may help the guys who edit these articles improve the quality of their images. At the moment it seems as though we are struggling a bit. We need help and advise. Thanks.

Articles this image appears in: wikilinks to the article/s that use this image

Creator: J Bar

Nominated by: PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can I just clarify before anyone comments - I think you are just asking for advice on the photo, not suggesting this for FPC? (If so that's fine, it will just alter the feedback you get.) --jjron (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct. I hope I haven't done the wrong thing PoorPhotoremovalist (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some feedback, to get better images its always better to take a front on image so that it doesn't look distorted and use a tripod or flat surface for the camera. Also, if it is possible, go at a time when people, cars etc wont block the image. Its best to take a good deal of the surrounding area in the image so that you can crop and get rid of what you dont need in editing, saves you going back when you realise something is chopped off! --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, you advise has been helpful. I will pass this onto the editor. Thanks P.o.o.r.P.h.o.t.o.r.e.m.o.v.i.l.s.t. (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hydraulic drop-hammer

This is a dramatically lit shot, yet the lighting on the subject in question is good enough to show all of the detail needed on the subject at hand. It is a nice illustration of the article, which shows the scale of a hydraulic drop hammer (which is important for a distinction in the article on drop hammers vs. counterblow), while also being visually striking. It's possible that it could use some cropping; perhaps cropping down to the left half of the image, to leave it in portrait orientation with the extraneous material at the right removed. The man's shirt is a bit overexposed; I'm not sure if anything could be done for this or if it detracts too much from the picture as a whole. I think this would be a good candidate because it is a striking, visually appealing image, of something that is uncommonly seen, and which has good illustrative value. It could use a good English language description; I'm not exactly sure how that should be handled on a photo from Commons.

Articles this image appears in: Forging

Creator: Falcon222 (who I'm guessing is Falcon222)

Nominated by: — λ (talk | contribs) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The aesthetics of the picture are not in doubt, it is very interesting and has the mood you would expect of that line of work. However the overexposure isnt the only technical problem, it seems to lack in detail and clarity in some areas but there isnt anything drastically wrong with the image. My problem with it is that it doesnt show enough of the work the man is doing, you can only really make out a block of red hot metal. Dont think it would pass at WP:FPC but might have a chance at the Quality Images thing --Childzy ¤ Talk 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shirt isn't just very blown out, it's also very distractingly bright. Using curves on just the area of the shirt probably improves it. You would get better results with a raw than a jpeg, of course. I would also crop out the "STOP Gefahr" sign because I find it destracting. —Darxus (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the good English language description should be handled on a photo from Commons by you adding it (on Commons). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darxus (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Platycryptus male eyes

Beautiful. The green of the eyes is contrasted with the orange and white "fur". Does not appear to be false-colored. This side of the head is nicely focused. I'm unsure whether the photographer is actually visible in the eye reflections; if so then it's really hard to see. Nicely illustrates the subject as a soulless killing machine.

Articles this image appears in: Spider, Jumping spider

Creator: Opoterser (over on Wikimedia Commons)

Nominated by: Tempshill (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The file is too small and doesn't meet the criteria for FPC. It might work for VPC though. Zoo Fari 23:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I think that although the picture is rather small it quite attractive. Maybe there are other better closeups of the eyes of spiders in wikipedia (I haven't seen them) but if not I do recommend this to be nominated. I'm sure it will get many clicks in the main page.Frank cheValier on a Pc (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George (Florida)

I like it. Yes, yes, WP:ILIKEIT and all, but I know what I like.

Articles this image appears in: St. Johns River

Creator: Moni3

Nominated by: Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for nominating here. While this image is quite nicely done, the problem images like this tend to have at FPC is that while we believe you that this is Lake George, Florida, it quite frankly could be anywhere. We've got water, we've got sky, and we've got a distant horizon. There's no landmarks or anything to make it specific to this place. Also I don't see why it's only used in St. Johns River while Lake George (Florida) remains imageless. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added more than 65K of cited text to the St. Johns River article and I'm not done yet. I can add more to Lake George, including an image, but one article at a time. I'm not sure what to say about the lake not being identifiable. --Moni3 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you are making substantial improvements. From time I make significant improvements to things like articles on rivers as well, and often upload a number of images to go with it. Most of the time I don't even consider nominating them for FP even when high quality, essentially for the reasons I've given you. Some users tend to focus on harvesting FPs and nominate virtually everything they upload while making few improvements to articles, but I think it's more important to improve articles in general, not just seek out FPs. In a roundabout way, my point being that it sounds like you're doing valuable work, but doing that work doesn't in itself lead to an FP, if you get what I mean. --jjron (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Is it possible at all to get an image promoted to FP that shows a large land or waterform such as this that is not as iconic as say, the St. Louis Arch? Would there by any image of Lake George that would get promoted if most pictures looked like a flat surface of water with trees miles in the distance? There aren't too many (or any) landmarks to identify the lake. I'm trying to draw attention to it and the river. And plus...the picture freakin' rules. I can't believe I got it. I've been slogging through marshes and riverbanks for days here. Give me some love. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO given what you've said and prior experience, I'd be inclined to say 'no'. You've also got the issue of technical quality here, which isn't that good (a side effect of the camera, although it appears that this may have been downsampled as well, perhaps too much). But don't just take my word for; I'm just one opinion, and there's nothing stopping you from nominating at FPC to get more. And whether promoted or not, being on FPC for a week and then in the archives will at least get you a bit more attention than it will get here :-). --jjron (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've also got the issue of technical quality here, which isn't that good (a side effect of the camera, although it appears that this may have been downsampled as well, perhaps too much). That looks like English, but the words in that order don't make sense to me. I had to look up downsampling, which I take to mean reduce in pixel size. I did not alter the image this way. I brought out some blue and green tones in the highlights and shadows, but not by more than ten points. I did not change the image size. So are you suggesting I nominate the image for FPC to give it and the article more attention? --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, FPC is very much about technical quality, perhaps too much at times - see the Criteria. To get to the point images taken with anything less than a DSLR tend to have a hard time these days, and while you haven't used a bad camera, this is still clearly taken with a compact. The occasional photo from a compact gets through, but that's becoming increasingly less common. Re the downsampling, from the image page this is 2,112 × 2,816 pixels, & 860 KB. For a 6megapixel image 860kb is quite a small filesize to maintain maximum quality. I was guessing you may have downsampled which may have cost you quality, but given the subject matter this size is possible I suppose, and it's also possible that any downsampling was done 'for you' by the camera. Anyway, as I said above, putting it up at FPC will get it more attention, and you are free to do so, but as greenj has now corroborated this is unlikely to meet with much success - whether you're of the 'any publicity is good publicity' school of thought or not may dictate which way you go. I would suggest it would meet with a similar reaction to the current nom Red Deer in Longford River. --jjron (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I offer a fresh opinion? I'd suggest that you look at these featured pictures of lakes. In all of these, the pictures significantly add to their articles in a way words can't: they illustrate surroundings, textures, what's in the lake, etc. Of those, the last one is probably closest to what your lake looks like (rather undistinguished), but even that has a convincing composition to benefit it (although I'd bet it would struggle at FPC by today's standards). Voters at FPC are looking for good illustrations; one that just shows sky and water isn't going to cut it for them. Its minimalist composition is different (reminds me of No Line on the Horizon) from what we normally see at WP, it won't count much for it at FPC. Thegreenj 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Ancient culture

This picture is a window to human history and evolution of culture and civilizations, it would make a great contribution.

Articles this image appears in: Azerbaijan

Creator: RetlawSnellac

Nominated by: RetlawSnellac (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting photo, but given the size right on the borderline and the nearly blown white sky, I doubt it would pass. A larger version might stand a chance if it's strong technically, though that sky may generate some knee-jerk opposes. Thegreenj 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per greenj and no further comments on the nom per se, but perhaps you could crop the sky out of a larger one without really impacting the EV. EV would also be helped if it could get somewhere a bit more specific than just the article on the country it's found in. --jjron (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Good Picture of a Mohawk

It really helps the article go above and beyond in showing a Mohawk it is also the main focus of the picture.

Articles this image appears in: Mohawk hairstyle

Creator: Ich

Nominated by: Etineskid (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please check the criteria. Regardless, I can't make sense of this nom - if the nominator and creator are different people, then the caption and image page make no sense. If they're the same person it then could be a case of sockpuppetry. --jjron (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a regular here, but would note that the front half of the mohawk blends in with the dark background; a lighter background would make the mohawk shape clearer. Tempshill (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this is well below the minimum size requirement at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Panorama of IIM Indore campus, Indore, India

Reason: This picture covers almost the entire campus of IIM Indore- taken from the tallest point at the campus. This is a 39 image stitch.I believe this matches all criteria as per Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, though I am not sure about whether the post processing will count as 'inappropriate digital manipulation'
Articles this image appears in: IIM Indore
Creator: User:trakesht
Nominated by: User:trakesht

Comments

Yes, sorry, you're on the money re the post processing. HDR images don't go down very well at FPC, and this one's been cooked up at a very high temperature :-). Can also see some stitching errors in the sky, visible even in thumbnail, probably exacerbated by the HDR, and the horizon has an odd curve to it. Nonetheless it's not a bad image and I can appreciate the work you've put into it. Any chance of redoing it without the HDR to give a more natural, realistic look? --jjron (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive misuse of the term HDR to refer to the process of Tone mapping. HDR can be used with contrast reduction instead of tone mapping to capture the full dynamic range and represent it in a (typical, sRGB color space) jpeg. This is what I came for :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darxus (talk • contribs) 22:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Towed Tubing on Pleasant Lake, MN

High quality, dynamic image, represents the subject well

Articles this image appears in: Tubing (recreation)

Creator: Peter Opatrny

Nominated by: Arustleund (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Arustleund. --jjron (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artichoke Flower

I think this picture might be featured picture quality, although I don't know very much about WP:FP. It shows an artichoke plant in bloom.

Articles this image appears in: Artichoke

Creator: Little Mountain 5

Nominated by: Little Mountain 5 14:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Without looking at this fullsize I'd say it wouldn't make it. The petals are clipped at the top, and given the structure of this I'd suggest the leaves could be included in full without being cut off in a really good photo. Also looks to have very bright (perhaps blown) highlights. Regardless, standards for these types of images tend to be pretty high, and the cutoff petals would be enough to do it in. Thanks for the nomination, it's a pretty good contribution, but not quite FP standard. --jjron (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the review. :) Little Mountain 5 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Feel free to pop any other possibilities up here and keep up the good work. --jjron (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pulsatilla alpina

File:Pulsatilla alpina fruit-edit1.jpg

Edit 1 by jjron - levels, sharpening, downsample

I've seen many other images go through the process and I believe my photo is up to scratch. It shows the detail of the fruit and I think it is the best quality photo to illustrate this.

Articles this image appears in: Pulsatilla alpina, Pulsatilla, Ranunculaceae

Creator: SiameseTurtle

Nominated by: SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think this is pretty good, especially considering the camera. Interesting fruit (should be stated in the caption though). Note however that this is NOT in any articles (despite the nom claiming it's in three). Needs to get in at least one article and stick there before it's eligible, and note that galleries don't count. Should also really be moved to Commons (though that's not actually a criterion). I feel it is a bit too soft at full size - have uploaded an edit with adjusted levels and sharpening that IMO helps with some minor issues with lighting and sharpness. Possibly worth a try. --jjron (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by SiameseTurtle. --jjron (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bee In Flight

Just discovered it on flickr, amazing photograph.

Articles this image appears in: None yet.

Creator: Jeff Turner from Santa Clarita, CA, United States

Nominated by: — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Quite a nice photo at smaller sizes, but not really up to some existing FPs on the same subject IMO. Focus looks a bit out and it certainly doesn't have the sharpness of some of ours. Compare to this older one by Fir0002 or this recently promoted one by Muhammad . Cheers, --jjron (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Galápagos Giant Tortoise

I think the size and composition of the image are good, also adds good value to the article.

Articles this image appears in: Tortoise, Giant tortoise, Galápagos tortoise

Creator: Childzy

Nominated by: Childzy ¤ Talk 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi Childzy, I won't be too detailed as you pretty much understand the FP process. For starters this looks overexposed to me, but that could be improved in an edit. Also seems to lack a bit of sharpness (just looking at the carapace on the image page size). But I think the real killer at FPC (which I'm sure you'll appreciate) is the unnatural setting, the log wall behind, the drain cover (?) at bottom right, would attract opposes on that even if all else was perfect. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, you also need to add some information to the image page - what, where, etc. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Headbanging cellist

An interesting combination of a classical instrument and behavior most commonly associated with music that isn't usually played with a cello.

Articles this image appears in: Apocalyptica Perttu Kivilaakso

Creator: teevee

Nominated by: teevee (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I am familiar with the band actually. I couldn't accurately predict the outcome at FPC though. As I understand it band photography typically requires fast primes and high ISO. There is a wierd red outlining effect, not much is in focus and it is noisy. I guess it would come down to if the difficulty would outweigh the poor technical quality. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Marine Corps Bayonet Training

I think it meets the criteria and was instructed to give this a try before submitting it.

Articles this image appears in: Bayonet, Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, OKC-3S bayonet, Knife bayonet

Creator: HighInBC

Nominated by: Kumioko (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This isn't a bad photo, but I feel it would be unlikely to meet with success at FPC. Some key reasons: size is marginal (although technically within guidelines); it feels a bit too cramped to be ideal for what it is showing - while it may have been shot this way to bring the viewer 'into the action', to me it would have been better to be a bit further back; related to the previous point, the crop is a bit tight, clipping off the guy on the left and only just leaving in the knife at the right; despite the potentially intentional close composition mentioned above, it just feels very staged to me and by being up close it just highlights this; I keep thinking it's a bit overexposed, however that's probably more a side-effect of the dead grass, so possibly OK there; there could be an issue with the source - it says HighInBC created it but also says the USMC did, so who did? - HighInBC certainly used to upload his own photos and I thought he was from Canada, so would be unlikely to be in the USMC and why didn't he upload it? This would need to be clarified. Thanks for bringing it here. --jjron (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Mortar firing

This Image simply has allot of wow factor about it and shows a mortar in action.

Articles this image appears in: United States Army Mortar (weapon) M734 M120 mortar

Creator: SSGT AARON D. ALLMON II, USAF

Nominated by: «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

For starters you'd need to try fixing the nasty tilt (must be about 10°CCW) and see what that does to the composition. (Note, I've only had a quick look, but for mine I'd also be a bit concerned about motion blurs as I feel it's been shot at too slow a shutter speed to be ideal for this photo.) --jjron (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Notable mutations

Links together the basic concept of the genetic code with some clinically important mutations. Colorful.

Articles this image appears in: Mutation, Genetic code

Creator: Mikael Häggström

Nominated by: Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Appears to be well referenced. I can't make any strong comments as I don't have much knowledge in the area. I'd probably give it a whirl though. It could be a little clearer that the third base is represented by the row in each cell. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I've specified the 3rd base in each row.Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: i. I wonder if the SVG shouldn't have a white bg too (transparency makes it bit hard to read); ii. I'd align the smaller boxes at the top with the right side of the big table; iii. some text alignment issues in the svg (hydrophobic runs outside border), but could be a thumbnailing issue as the 'fullsize' looked OK; iv. I haven't read the full text carefully, but what's with those random molecules scattered around the diagram? --jjron (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the background with white in Inkscape, but it still turns out transparent in the browser, but only on the image description page, not when in Wikipedia mainspace or when clicking on it to view only the image in Firefox, so I think it's acceptable, since it's probably meant to make clear that it's actually a vector image. I gave some more space to hydrophobic, and also some to missense, nonsense etc, but they still cross the borders in the thumb, and if I compress them more they'll look weird in fullsize. As to the molecules, they are the coded amino acids for each codon. Putting the boxes to right made space for a descriptive box inside the image as well. Thanks for comments. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutations that cause something such as sickle-cell anaemia will cause that phenotype in the cells, but something such as a missense mutation in cancer will only make one more susceptible to its development, so I would like to see something to clarify that. In addition, I think links to the diseases and/or genes in the description would be helpful. SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Jacques Cartier Bridge

File:JCBridge.JPG

Original - Jacques Cartier Bridge

This is one of only three pictures in List of bridges in Montreal that was not taken by myself. I believe there is not much that can be done to improve it, either by finding a better spot from which to take a picture, or a better timing for it. At full resolution, you can even see a bird flying above the bridge.

Articles this image appears in: List of bridges in Montreal, Jacques Cartier Bridge, Montreal, Transportation in Montreal

Creator: Bolshoibooze13

Nominated by: Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is quite an attractive and artistic depiction of the bridge but I would doubt its chances at FPC. The location of the sun takes out a lot of detail of the bridge itself, leaving much of it in silhouette. One of the key criteria is encyclopaedic value (EV) and this lighting, while looking attractive, reduces the EV. Some other issues could include that the bridge is partially cut-off, particularly at right, the foreground is a bit unappealing (the bit of road and armco) as well as that tree that is unfortunately positioned to obscure the pylon. There also appears to be some lens distortion causing the bridge to look curved (other photos from other angles indicate it is straight until it curves off at the end as the roadway descends). I have only looked at this at a reduced size (2000px) so can't comment on the other technicals for sure, but at that size there appears to be a bit more noise and artifacting than generally liked at FPC. Thanks for the nomination here; will leave it up what to do with it. --jjron (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wicked Witch of the East

A high resolution (2,743 × 3,280 px) portrait of the Wicked Witch of the East which retains thin lines that might be lost in some high contrast scans.

Articles this image appears in: Wicked Witch of the East

Creator: The Man in Question

Nominated by: — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The fact that no-ones stopped by to review these two probably reflects the response you'd get at FPC, sad to say. As originals they're were probably too small and lacking in detail to make them truly exceptional examples of their type, even though technically-speaking there's nothing wrong with their reproduction here. Bottom line, this sort of subject is always hard to "sell" at FPC because it needs something really compelling and encyclopedic to commend it. This recent successful nomination shows how it needs to be: a complete set of very detailed images, overseen by Carroll himself, all illustrating scenes (as well as characters) from Alice. Anything less would likely not have passed. --mikaul^talk 02:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Glinda

A high resolution (2,050 × 2,696 px) portrait of Glinda which retains thin lines that might be lost in some high contrast scans.

Articles this image appears in: Glinda

Creator: User:The Man in Question

Nominated by: — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

^ Cite error: The named reference RuppertFoxBarnes2004P532To537 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ References for the image are found in Wikimedia Commons page at: Commons:File:Notable mutations.svg#References.

[RuppertFoxBarnes2004P532To537-1] Cite error: The named reference RuppertFoxBarnes2004P532To537 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] References for the image are found in Wikimedia Commons page at: Commons:File:Notable mutations.svg#References.

[1]

[2]