Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Jan-Mar 2011
|
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.
|
These crabs reside underwater in the Jameos Del Agua making it very difficult to get a good shot. It's been cropped to remove the flash reflection as much as I could. Could anything be done to improve it more?
- Articles this image appears in
- Munidopsis polymorpha
- Creator
- Martyx
- Suggested by
- •martyx• tkctgy 15:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I'm sorry, I don't think this picture has FP potential. I fully understand it's a very hard thing to take a photo of, maybe you could consider Valued Images at commons. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Can I ask specifically why this isn't of FP potential? Is there anything I could have to improve the shot? I guess the article is only a stub which also doesn't help matters. •martyx• tkctgy 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Some possible reasons. Resolution is too small - yes it's over the 1000px requirement, but realistically the subject is only a small part in the centre of the image, meaning the subject itself is well below requirements. Focus on the beastie just isn't good enough, meaning it lacks details. For a comparison go to say Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Insects and open some of those images up fullsize (and I mean not just image page size) - compare the quality, details, and sharpness. Background is pretty messy looking; it would have been better on the centre of the rock, not over the join. The composition issue you could certainly fix by reshooting, but realistically (and I don't mean to sound too negative) you're not going to get a macro FP with that camera. I would say any such FP in probably at least the last five years would have been taken with a DSLR, and mostly with specialised macro lenses and usually off camera flashes. In general people would be shooting with say a minimum of $2000 of equipment; you can't match that with a little compact camera. Granted there would be some considerations given to it being underwater (I think that's what you've suggested), but that wouldn't mitigate enough. Thanks for your contributions though. --jjron (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Can I ask specifically why this isn't of FP potential? Is there anything I could have to improve the shot? I guess the article is only a stub which also doesn't help matters. •martyx• tkctgy 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. If I get a chance to revisit Lanzarote in the near future I will try to take another shot of these crabs. The issues posed are the fact they are underwater, blind, and typically immobile. The other issue being the very limited access to take photos (avoid the other tourists). I think if I were to get any closer my camera would have been under the water! I guess this was more of a lucky shot rather than anything particularly special! And whilst not $2000 the Canon PowerShot SX1 IS is by no means compact! In this shot I did also use a separate flash mounted to the hot shoe. •martyx• tkctgy 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I probably should have said above, but voters tend to prefer 'perfect' specimens. This guy's got one claw pointing down, meaning you can't really see it, and his legs are all over the place, rather than being roughly symmetrical (and I'm not sure, but is he missing a leg?). So if you get a chance to reshoot perhaps keep that in mind (given they're pretty immobile, it's not possible to nudge them a bit into position is it?), but yeah, being underwater is going to make it hard. --jjron (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. If I get a chance to revisit Lanzarote in the near future I will try to take another shot of these crabs. The issues posed are the fact they are underwater, blind, and typically immobile. The other issue being the very limited access to take photos (avoid the other tourists). I think if I were to get any closer my camera would have been under the water! I guess this was more of a lucky shot rather than anything particularly special! And whilst not $2000 the Canon PowerShot SX1 IS is by no means compact! In this shot I did also use a separate flash mounted to the hot shoe. •martyx• tkctgy 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have no objection to the position of the claw. Resolution meets minimum requirement. I like the image but it has some problems with what look like shadows or reflections, so it's not quite FP, but you certainly could try for VP on Commons. Pine (was GreenPine) talk 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
Best Photos Around The World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatinwb (talk • contribs) 11:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this photo is an excellent one of the main hall of Nanchan Temple, China's oldest timber building. It has good contrast and lighting and because of the foreground, gives the viewer a good approximation of what being in the temple is really like.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nanchan Temple
- Creator
- zeus1234
- Suggested by
- Zeus1234 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- The advice I'd give you is to try to do something with the shadows. The shadow of the roof on the building is distracting, you could try to lighten it a bit in photoshop or similar. The bushes on the sides are also a bit distracting - could you crop them out?, or maybe also try to somehow fix the dark shadows in them. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Quite a few blown or nearly blown highlights. I'd say this probably needs to be re-shot at a different time of day for better lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
Beautiful image with highly detailed lotus
- Articles this image appears in
- Creator
- Tatiraju.rishabh
- Suggested by
- Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- It's a nice picture, but I'm afraid it's not quite up to FP quality. The focus/details are not enormous, and the background is a bit messy. would it be possible to retake with a bit more attention on the background? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Blown highlights. This needs re-shot in better light conditions. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly with a polarizing filter to reduce the glare off the water?. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
I think the diagram represents a striking and astonishing fact of nature showing Earth’s tiny scale in comparison to the enormous cosmos we reside it. I believe it agrees with FP guidelines and should be featured for visitors to observe. Note that I marked the image as square because the pano and landscape were too large for the page.
- Articles this image appears in
- Local Group, Supercluster, Virgo Supercluster, Observable universe, Milky Way, and Earth's location in the universe
- Creator
- Andrew Colvin
- Suggested by
- A. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I guess the first question that would be asked is why isn't this svg? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- I used Photoshop and a 3D modeling program for the diagram. I am not very familiar with Inkscape, but I know that parts of the image are not made with vectors meaning that they would not be scalable. It would become blurry. I am not knowledgeable about how SVG works, but I am almost sure it requires all aspects of the image to be vectors. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding svg: it is possible to embed raster images into them, but indeed this is usually undesirable. I believe in this case it may be nice to have it in all vectors, using illustrations instead of raster images. Another thing: I much prefer the resolution of File:Earth's Location in the Universe SMALLER (JPEG).jpg. It's easier to take in at full size. And also, it would be nice to have a scale (in lightyears) for each depiction, so we get an idea of how large it gets (and how tiny the Earth really is!). Jujutacular talk 02:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding vectors: for example something like File:Emblem-earth.svg could be used for the earth image. Jujutacular talk 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
An amazing photo during an amazing event
- Articles this image appears in
- 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, 2011 Egyptian revolution and Egypt
- Creator
- Drumzo
- Suggested by
- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I don't think it's FP ready yet. There is a big ball of light in the middle making it hard to see and actully looking more at it; the picture looks like it was taken through a window. Also lots of noise. If we still had VP it would be perfect but FP wise I don't see it. Spongie555 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly, I have to agree with the above - a historic image, but unfortunately not of the quality or resolution that would pass at FP seeing as it was taken only a month ago. Certainly a valuable image for the encyclopedia, though - thank you. Bob talk 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
I think this simply is a good photo.
- Articles this image appears in
- Hradec Králové
- Creator
- Kozuch
- Suggested by
- Kozuch (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I guess the inevitable question is why not show the whole thing? JJ Harrison (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- I should probably add that I can remember standing in that tower. My Grandmother was from Hradec Králové. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- This shot is simply meant as a tower top detail and as the tower is in the center of historic town, from this angle (45 degrees) you can not shoot if whole because of other buildings anyway. The same is with the tight crop - this was shot thgouth a little space between other buildings... I guess the tight crop might be a problem in FPC?--Kozuch (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- My guess is that people wouldn't be happy with the tight crop. Perhaps it'd be better to photograph the whole square including the foreground buildings? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- The image was extended a bit.--Kozuch (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- My guess is that people wouldn't be happy with the tight crop. Perhaps it'd be better to photograph the whole square including the foreground buildings? JJ Harrison (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
Tbh, because it took ages to stich together, and I'm really (too) proud of it.
- Articles this image appears in
- Belvedere auf dem Pfingstberg
- Creator
- Aaadddaaammm
- Suggested by
- Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Seconder
Very beautiful image from outer space.
- Articles this image appears in
- Dunes, Taklamakan Desert
- Suggested by
- Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Its an interesting image, but the resolution is low. Have you checked NASA to see if a higher quality version is available? JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- It was taken from NASA's WorldWind Software. I'll try my best to gat a higher resolution. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, there no high-res version available Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Can you take adjacent images and blend them together to make it bigger overall? Resolution questions are a little bit silly when you're taking a photo of a fractal. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good thing it isn't a photo of a fractal :P. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It totally is a fractal (until you get close to individual grains, but that's not exactly a problem here). Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good thing it isn't a photo of a fractal :P. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is a nice picture, but pretty low resolution. Be careful with the term "outer space" too. This image is almost certainly captured from low earth orbit, which is not outer space. - Zephyris Talk 23:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
Very pretty contrasts in hue, luminosity. Cliffs, mountains, and clouds!
- Articles this image appears in
- Virgin River
- Creator
- Douglas Dietiker
- Suggested by
- Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Nice, but the low resolution makes passing unlikely. JJ Harrison (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty, but I don't think this light is ideal for an encyclopedic picture. JJ's right about the size too. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
I found this image on a National Science Foundation website, and I thought it may be of good enough quality to get FP. Thoughts? Best, Mifter (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Articles this image appears in
- Emperor Penguin
- Creator
- Glenn Grant, National Science Foundation
- Suggested by
- Mifter (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- If the foreground was brightened up and there was reference to "kissing" in the article, then it'd have a pretty good chance in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree on both points with JJ. Jujutacular talk 02:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
It's quite unusual to have a good "moving" shot of a car that's in focus, especially one as nice as this (you can even read the brake calipers). Has good encyclopedic value. I don't think we have many car FPs, so this might be a good potential candidate.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ferrari F40
- Creator
- Will ainsworth
- Suggested by
- Bob talk 18:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Looks good, but don't trust my outdated opinion. MER-C 02:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
| Native range of the painted turtle (C. picta) Click for Canadian province abbreviations Click for U.S. state abbreviations Rivers shown are those mentioned in the text. | Eastern (C. p. picta) Midland (C. p. marginata) Southern (C. p. dorsalis) Western (C. p. bellii) | Intergrade mixtures (large areas only) Mix of eastern and midland Mix of eastern and southern Mix of midland and western |
I'm proud of all the work that Fallschirmjäger did to combine information into this complicated presentation. I also think that quality maps are very important for biological articles and something for WP to tout.
- Articles this image appears in
- Painted turtle
- Creator
- Fallschirmjäger
- Suggested by
- TCO (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- The obvious criticism is that it requires sources. Even if they're the ones used at the article, they should be listed on the file page. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I linked to a diff for the article section. If anything else needed, please advise.TCO (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Added a full list of sources used for the map data, which should cover this base. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I linked to a diff for the article section. If anything else needed, please advise.TCO (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
It has good EV, good detail and is of high quality.
- Articles this image appears in
- The Birth of Venus (Botticelli), Sandro Botticelli, GLaDOS
- Creator
- Sandro Botticelli
- Suggested by
- Secret Saturdays (talk to me)what's new? 17:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- We used to have a Birth of Venus FP, but it was delisted. The foot is cut off in that one and in this once (see File:La naissance de Vénus.jpg for the full foot). For FP, we'd need a version with the complete foot. We also want one with accurate colors. I'm not sure what the accurate colors are; I've seen a bunch of different versions. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
I borrowed a friend's macro lens and had a go at image stacking with CombineZP. I removed a slight halo with GIMP. The connector is made of soft aluminium and is assembled by hand onto the end of a cable cut to length.
- Articles this image appears in
- TV aerial plug and List of video connectors
- Creator
- Colin
- Suggested by
- Colin°Talk 20:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Would it be possible to get a picture of one in better shape? This plug seems fairly beat up. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have given the lens back and so can't take any more pictures. All I can do is adjustments to the set of pictures I took. The marks and scratches are a feature of its soft aluminium rather than having had a particularly hard life. I guess a stainless-stell one would look smarter, but less interesting?. Colin°Talk 07:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, there's another pic I took at File:F Connector Side.jpg. I didn't post both here as I thought the comments would be similar. It is a different kind of connector but still a stacked macro shot. Colin°Talk 11:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- The photos are well done, but I'd expect some impedance (heh) due to the less than virgin nature of the connectors. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I guess I need to take pictures of brand new stuff. Colin°Talk 10:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- The photos are well done, but I'd expect some impedance (heh) due to the less than virgin nature of the connectors. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
The photo is a clear view of the fallen sequoia, at Bank Hall in Bretherton, the view has never been seen before due to the sycamore trees that once surrounded it, blocking the view. The tree is one of only two specimen in the UK, which is not the trees natural environment, making this tree very rare in the British Isles.
- Articles this image appears in
- Bank Hall Gardens, Arboretum
- Creator
- Bankhallbretherton
- Suggested by
- Bankhallbretherton (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I'm not sure that it has particularly good EV (encyclopedic value) in either article. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
Grizzly bears and salmon runs both are important parts of Alaska ecosystem. While pictures of Katmai bears are hardly unique, very few (if any) are available under Creative Commons or other free licenses.
- Articles this image appears in
- Grizzly bear, Katmai National Park and Preserve
- Creator
- Azov
- Suggested by
- Azov (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- It looks like you've done some strange processing on this image - up close it looks more like an oil painting than a photo. With this sort of manipulation, it's unlikely to pass. Could you upload the original? Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a spectacular photo, I don't see this strange processing, if I were you I would go for Good Picture status straight away, and then featured picture. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- This image was probably captured at a high iso and it looks like there has been a heavy denoise or median filter applied. A better denoising algorithm would improve this picture greatly. - Zephyris Talk 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
I believe this is a featured picture, because it has the right brightness and isn't blurred.
- Articles this image appears in
- Kansas Speedway, 2010 Price Chopper 400
- Creator
- Balaji
- Suggested by
- Nascar1996 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- The image is tilted, and I believe slightly oversaturated. There are also noticeable JPEG artifacts, noticeable in the sky and possibly loss of detail in the racing track. It would be better from an enc perspective for there to be racing cars with motion blur. MER-C 02:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it's a tiny bit tilted, but I don't have a problem with the saturation. JPEG artefacts are really subtle, but yea they do exist. My main complaint is the busy composition. Maybe crop the tower on the right out? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has been cropped. Nascar1996 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Much better, but still not sure if it's good enough got a FP. I'm no pro around here though, so don't take my word as gospel! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has been cropped. Nascar1996 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
stumbled across this at Flickr. Has a high resolution and seems to be of technical high quality. I do not know much about the finer details of imagery, so any comments would be appreciated. Does this have a chance at FPC?
- Articles this image appears in
- Usher (entertainer)
- Creator
- David Berkowitz
- Suggested by
- Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Sorry, it's a perfectly okay photo, but nowhere near FP quality IMO. It's cropped too tightly at the sides, the pose is ordinary, there's a lot of noise and I don't care for the shadow and glare from the flash. Given he's wearing sunglasses inside, I assume they're part of his public persona, but they might be unpopular at FPC too. Comparing Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment with some failed nominations of celebrity photos in 2010 gives an idea of the standard needed. --Avenue (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
- The shadow from the flash kills the pic for me. I would have flagged this as discard on that point alone if I took it.
Beautiful Landscape
- Articles this image appears in
- Purandar fort
- Creator
- Rishabh Tatiraju
- Suggested by
- Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- It is a nice piece of landscape but the haze really holds the image quality back. Would it be possible to retake the picture on a clearer day? The framing could also be better - a wider view of the surrounding landscape (e.g a ~5:3 aspect ratio) would be nice. - Zephyris Talk 23:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
It's a very high resolution shot compared to most shots of dog breeds. I've done a little work on it such as removing the copyright tag placed there by the creator and balancing out the colors. This is the first time I've looked into FP's, so while I think it meets the criteria, I'm prepared to be corrected. :)
- Articles this image appears in
- Saint Usuge Spaniel
- Creator
- DanielV27 (On Commons)
- Suggested by
- Miyagawa talk 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Seconder
High quality, restored version of an historic image of a notable Russian political figure.
- Articles this image appears in
- Maxim Gorky, List of Russian language novelists, List of Russian people
- Creator
- Library of Congress, edited by Fallschirmjäger
- Suggested by
- Fallschirmjäger ✉ 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Pretty good I think. Restoration has been documented and there is a link to the original, which is important too. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder
It is a sample of German WWII currency, with a low serial number, and is in decent condition.
- Articles this image appears in
- Reichsmark
- Creator
- Sumsum2010
- Suggested by
- Sumsum2010·T·C 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- There are images out there without such prominent creasing. Are any available to us? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find any Wikipedia appropriate images. This is the only one of this particular denomination of banknote I currently can attain. Would flattening the bill under some heavy books help remove the creases? Sumsum2010·T·C 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd try that. It needs higher resolution to pass too. I'd suggest a scanner set to high resolution instead of a camera. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I'll see what I can do. Sumsum2010·T·C 17:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd try that. It needs higher resolution to pass too. I'd suggest a scanner set to high resolution instead of a camera. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't seem to find any Wikipedia appropriate images. This is the only one of this particular denomination of banknote I currently can attain. Would flattening the bill under some heavy books help remove the creases? Sumsum2010·T·C 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
For similar Banknotes have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Billet_drapeau_de_100_francs_recto.jpg . best regards --Drdoht (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seconder