Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Wells House
.JPG)
Original (left), Edit (right) - Ida B. Wells-Barnett House is a National Historic Landmark on the South Side of Chicago.
This seems to be a vibrant photo of a landmark that enhances multiple articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have added this image to Ida B. Wells and Douglas, Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger
- Nominated by
- TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comments
- Without saying too much, perhaps look at the voting on the current nom Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anne Frank House, and a previous incarnation of it Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Anne Frank Huis for the type of feedback you could expect. And this also has other issues, such as the blown sky to consider. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that with the sky I probably could not shoot for FP, but what about VP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even in thumbnail there's a number of obvious problems, the blown sky, the tree at left, the perspective distortion, the awkwardly cut building at right. VP has lower technical standards, not "no" technical standards. You could try nominating there if you want to try it out, but it's not something I would personally support as I think it would be easy to get considerably better. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Do you know how to crop and adjust perspective so that just the house and not the cutoff neighbors are in the picture. This would almost eliminate the tree problem. Would't that get us to at least VP. I can't make the sky blue on a day when it wasn't.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be honest, I am confused on what the perspective standards are for FP and VP. FPs like File:Treasury_of_Athens_at_Delphi.jpg and File:ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg don't seem to have such great perspective. Do the edges of buildings have to be perfectly vertical?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can't make the sky blue, but going on your contributions you're from Chicago, so you could go back and take the photo again on a better day ;-). There's no hard and fast rules about anything much - judging images is by its very nature subjective. The technical criteria we use such as resolution, noise, etc are a way to add a degree of objectivity to the judging. But re things like perspective, if an image is spectacular enough (often termed "WOW factor") things like that may be overlooked. In general though, yes, the edges pretty much should be vertical. Standards are increasing all the time. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Treasury of Athens was promoted nearly four years ago, and even then it raised quite a few grumbles - I couldn't see it passing now. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg is indeed an odd one, I was on a wikibreak at the time so didn't see it, but I suspect if it was a photo rather than a painting it may have met with less success - if you read the votes a lot of them seem to be going with the 'wow' vote there. VP standards aren't necessarily so high and are really still in flux, but things that can be fixed are usually expected to be fixed, e.g., tilts, likely perspective issues, etc. --jjron (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is Chicago. There may never be another day when the sky is blue!-) I do see that almost every architecture at FP has a blue sky. I also see lots of blue skies at VP. I see your point.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can't make the sky blue, but going on your contributions you're from Chicago, so you could go back and take the photo again on a better day ;-). There's no hard and fast rules about anything much - judging images is by its very nature subjective. The technical criteria we use such as resolution, noise, etc are a way to add a degree of objectivity to the judging. But re things like perspective, if an image is spectacular enough (often termed "WOW factor") things like that may be overlooked. In general though, yes, the edges pretty much should be vertical. Standards are increasing all the time. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Treasury of Athens was promoted nearly four years ago, and even then it raised quite a few grumbles - I couldn't see it passing now. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg is indeed an odd one, I was on a wikibreak at the time so didn't see it, but I suspect if it was a photo rather than a painting it may have met with less success - if you read the votes a lot of them seem to be going with the 'wow' vote there. VP standards aren't necessarily so high and are really still in flux, but things that can be fixed are usually expected to be fixed, e.g., tilts, likely perspective issues, etc. --jjron (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even in thumbnail there's a number of obvious problems, the blown sky, the tree at left, the perspective distortion, the awkwardly cut building at right. VP has lower technical standards, not "no" technical standards. You could try nominating there if you want to try it out, but it's not something I would personally support as I think it would be easy to get considerably better. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that with the sky I probably could not shoot for FP, but what about VP?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
←Comment I have corrected perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seconder