Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Elephant in Mikumi
I want feedback on its quality and encyclopedic value.
- Creator
- Muhammad
- Nominated by
- Muhammad(talk) 04:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- As is it only illustrates (the gallery of) Mikumi National Park. I'm not sure that would give it sufficient EV even if you put it in the article proper, and to be honest I don't think the elephant is good enough (too far away, seems a bit off focus or just soft, and partially obscured) to get thru if you put into the elephant article. For those reasons, as nice a photo as it is, I would suspect it would not succeed at FPC. --jjron (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. If you get the time, could you (or anybody else) also check the gallery of the Mikumi National Park and let me know if any of the pics there have the required quality? Muhammad(talk) 15:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean in terms of illustrating the National Park, or the animals depicted? I'd be interested to see it tested, but I'm not sure that any image that is primarily showing an animal (or plant) in the National Park would pass on EV as an illustration of the NP. --jjron (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the image has litlle EV by merely being in the gallery of the article. But such an image can be used to illustrate the vegetation of the park for instance, which IMO would increase its EV Muhammad(talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand your argument, but I suspect you would spend an FPC nomination arguing it, and probably without much success. The question is why are images of NPs FP worthy? Usually it would show something about the natural features of the park that is the reason it has been declared, which may include some plants and animals, but is rarely exclusively that, for example there will usually be particular special geological or geographic features. I'd say showing a particular animal or plant is generally a pretty poor reason to give as the reason for an FPC illustrating a NP, unless say the NP has been declared specifically to preserve that species (and in which case the image would probably be enc for the species article too). For example, if I look at this image I see this NP has elephants - OK, that's fine, but I'm sure dozens of other NPs in Africa also have elephants, so why would we feature this one? I hope you can follow what I'm trying to say. Just think about what your other image showed about the NP that saw it well supported and granted FP status. --jjron (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I follow what you say. Since this is peer review, could you tell me if any of the picture in the gallery have the required quality in terms of illustrating the animal? Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, have been very busy. I'll try to take a look at some stage when I get a bit more time on my hands, as there's quite a few of them there ;-). --jjron (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, so finally got around to this :-). The same argument as for the elephant would apply re their enc for the NP. In terms of the animals, a lot of them are good photos, and have good enc being more natural photos of the animals (as opposed to say zoo shots), but I personally doubt any of them would be there in terms FP quality. It looks to me that you were stretching the capabilities of your lens/camera in many (most?) cases, e.g., some are taken at something like 300mm and F18. IMO, and others may think differently, the best ones at least in terms of combined composition & quality are File:Lioness stare mikimi.jpg and File:Deer mikumi2.jpg. Some of the other lioness shots are quite good too, but that one's my favourite. However it looks like the focus is a bit off on both (it looks to be more around the hindquarters of the animals rather than the faces), but in terms of FP nominations I'd say they'd be the most likely. I think if the focus was spot on on the lioness stare one that would be a good candidate, but wouldn't fully endorse it as is, sorry. Hope that's of some help. --jjron (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking time to view and comment, I know it must have taken long. I will check if I have any lioness ones with the focus better.
- Incidentally, isn't File:Deer mikumi2.jpg an impala, which is a type of antelope rather than a deer? --jjron (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing some of the impala pictures, I am convinced I named my image wrongly, but I was sure the guide said it was a deer. I will rename it when I can. Thanks Muhammad(talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, what do guides know? ;-) Impala or not (and I think it is), if you have a look at the deer article in the lead in paragraph it says "The...Water Chevrotain (or Mouse Deer) of tropical African and Asian forests are not true deer...All other animals in Africa resembling deer are antelope." So going on that it couldn't be a deer anyway, because I doubt it's a mouse deer. --jjron (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing some of the impala pictures, I am convinced I named my image wrongly, but I was sure the guide said it was a deer. I will rename it when I can. Thanks Muhammad(talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so finally got around to this :-). The same argument as for the elephant would apply re their enc for the NP. In terms of the animals, a lot of them are good photos, and have good enc being more natural photos of the animals (as opposed to say zoo shots), but I personally doubt any of them would be there in terms FP quality. It looks to me that you were stretching the capabilities of your lens/camera in many (most?) cases, e.g., some are taken at something like 300mm and F18. IMO, and others may think differently, the best ones at least in terms of combined composition & quality are File:Lioness stare mikimi.jpg and File:Deer mikumi2.jpg. Some of the other lioness shots are quite good too, but that one's my favourite. However it looks like the focus is a bit off on both (it looks to be more around the hindquarters of the animals rather than the faces), but in terms of FP nominations I'd say they'd be the most likely. I think if the focus was spot on on the lioness stare one that would be a good candidate, but wouldn't fully endorse it as is, sorry. Hope that's of some help. --jjron (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, have been very busy. I'll try to take a look at some stage when I get a bit more time on my hands, as there's quite a few of them there ;-). --jjron (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I follow what you say. Since this is peer review, could you tell me if any of the picture in the gallery have the required quality in terms of illustrating the animal? Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand your argument, but I suspect you would spend an FPC nomination arguing it, and probably without much success. The question is why are images of NPs FP worthy? Usually it would show something about the natural features of the park that is the reason it has been declared, which may include some plants and animals, but is rarely exclusively that, for example there will usually be particular special geological or geographic features. I'd say showing a particular animal or plant is generally a pretty poor reason to give as the reason for an FPC illustrating a NP, unless say the NP has been declared specifically to preserve that species (and in which case the image would probably be enc for the species article too). For example, if I look at this image I see this NP has elephants - OK, that's fine, but I'm sure dozens of other NPs in Africa also have elephants, so why would we feature this one? I hope you can follow what I'm trying to say. Just think about what your other image showed about the NP that saw it well supported and granted FP status. --jjron (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the image has litlle EV by merely being in the gallery of the article. But such an image can be used to illustrate the vegetation of the park for instance, which IMO would increase its EV Muhammad(talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean in terms of illustrating the National Park, or the animals depicted? I'd be interested to see it tested, but I'm not sure that any image that is primarily showing an animal (or plant) in the National Park would pass on EV as an illustration of the NP. --jjron (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. If you get the time, could you (or anybody else) also check the gallery of the Mikumi National Park and let me know if any of the pics there have the required quality? Muhammad(talk) 15:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder