Wikipedia:Picture peer review/FieldSurgery
Appearance
I think it's a really striking photograph: the perspective, the lighting, the word "surgery" front and center yet affixed almost haphazardly.
- Creator
- uploaded by zafiroblue05, created by someone in the US Army
- Nominated by
- zafiroblue05 | Talk 04:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- This has been nominated at FPC before I am pretty sure. I don't think it passed. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know what, it has, the image is here and its review is here. I didn't know that. Except: 1) that other image isn't included in any articles 2) the main complaint in its FPC was the lighting, which here, for whatever reason, is in my opinion a lot better than in the previous version. (I found the picture through the National Archives, and the other image, it seems, comes from the Department of Defense. Why they're different, I don't know--presumably in the scanning.) At any rate, I still think this version is very good and useful from an encyclopedic standpoint. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- This version certainly improves the blown highlights and lighting aspect now i can see the both of them, however the considerably lower resolution and consequent reduction in detail around the important part of the image would make me wonder if a high resolution version without hte highlight problems would be availible. That said on it's own it'd probably do alright, the only complaint may be the size. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know what, it has, the image is here and its review is here. I didn't know that. Except: 1) that other image isn't included in any articles 2) the main complaint in its FPC was the lighting, which here, for whatever reason, is in my opinion a lot better than in the previous version. (I found the picture through the National Archives, and the other image, it seems, comes from the Department of Defense. Why they're different, I don't know--presumably in the scanning.) At any rate, I still think this version is very good and useful from an encyclopedic standpoint. zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder
- Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)