Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Oct-Dec 2008

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

Wind Point Lighthouse at Sunrise[edit]

Wind Point Lighthouse and surroundings taken at sunrise in the summer of 2007

I would just like comments on this. This is the first picture I have uploaded here and would like to know if I am on the right track. Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

Creator: Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Daniel J Simanek (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a pretty good effort. I would be interested to know what camera gear you are using? A few points I would make. The image, especially the lighthouse, looks a bit soft, I suspect it is a bit out of focus as the rocks in the water seem to be in better focus than the lighthouse itself. Possibly you took this with a digital compact? If so (or even if not) it could probably do with downsizing to help with the sharpness issue; note this won't fix the problem, but it will help it look better. The stitching seems pretty good, but there are some problems quite visible at the left - there is a band in the sky that could probably be fixed successfully with good use of the healing brush in Photoshop, but there is also a problem in the water a little bit across to the right that would be harder to fix (this can often be a problem when shooting a 'moving target' such as waves). There does also seem to be a slight colour variation across the images that have been used for stitching - perhaps you had the camera set to auto exposure rather than manual? Composition is quite nice - I personally feel it's cropped a bit tight at the top, we probably could have had a little less rocks/water and bit more breathing space for the lighthouse, which is after all the main subject. Also the island appears a bit 'pointy' - this may be a reflection of the true shape of the shoreline, but is often a perspective artifact when setting the camera up in the middle and then stitching the images, especially if what was in the middle was a lot nearer the camera than what was at the sides. One other thing is that it's usually recommended to upload images to Commons rather straight to Wikipedia. I think you have done a very good job - ATM I doubt this would pass at FPC, but there's not a lot wrong with it and it's a good contribution to the article. --jjron (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! The camera I am using is a Kodak EasyShare Z730, not the best camera in the world but, not the worst either. I am really not sure if it could be considered a digital compact (it is by no means pocket size); it does have your standard manual adjustments, but no manual focus. I am not sure what settings I used to take the shots, I was just starting out at the time and, to be honest, I really had no idea what I was doing. The tight crop was a consequence of the way I had to take the pictures. I was standing out in the middle of the busted up pier you see in the picture trying to keep the camera level so the picture wasn't 'smiling' so, when I cropped I was forced to crop on the lowest edge of the set. As for the pointyness, it is called 'Wind Point' and its actaully not an island (although other people unfamiliar with the area have thought the same).

I am not the greatest with Photoshop, so do you have any suggestions on how to clean the waves, or would that be more trouble than its worth? Also you meantioned the stitching on the left side, did you mean by the clouds? Would you recommend just getting rid of them or is there a better way about that? Also if you have any sugestions on how to prevent smile on pans when you can't keep the camera level, they would be much apprecated.

Once again, thanks for the review! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably say that camera's basically a compact, but as you say it shouldn't be too bad, and with manual control you should be able to get decent shots. Not sure what you mean by 'smiling' - I assume you're talking about the tendency to take the images at the side higher than the ones in the centre, so when stitched you get it bending down in the centre? I spose the best suggestion for how to avoid that it to set your camera up on a tripod and then just pan it horizontally without adjusting the vertical. Another idea (not sure what you've done here) is to take your original shots with the camera in portrait rather than landscape orientation. This gives you more height to play with, and often more detail in each shot (as you can zoom in a bit more). If your camera has a 'stitch assist' setting that usually won't work in portrait, but oh well. Re the waves I wouldn't bother fixing them here, it's not a huge issue, but it would be an issue if you were nominating at FPC. A bit of creative cloning could help the situation, so it could be worth just having a play with that (i.e., the clone stamp tool) for a bit of practice, but my suspicion here is that it's almost as much a problem with the variation in lighting as with the motion of the water. Re the sky, I wasn't talking about the clouds, there's an error in the sky itself, again a problem with the variable lighting - this is most visible right at the very top at approx. 660px from the left edge. I just had a fiddle and that's pretty easily fixed using the healing brush tool (I see you've edited this in Elements, so I'm not sure what tools that does and doesn't have). Cheers, --jjron (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Death in Art[edit]

This is an example of the European attitude towards death after the Plague.

Creator: Unknown (Restored by Nominator)

Nominated by: Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

At the moment it's not in any articles. Where do you propose it would go? It's a pretty interesting picture in itself, but I'm not too sure on the Encyclopaedic Value. --jjron (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plague? Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it could go into Black Death or Consequences of the Black Death, but we need some more context about the image itself, such as when/where it was created. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Elephant in Mikumi[edit]

I want feedback on its quality and encyclopedic value.

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 04:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        Thanks. Muhammad(talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        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)[reply]

Seconder

Juvenile Candlebark leaves[edit]

good quality - adds value to article - not sure if it's worth an fp nom though

Creator: Benjamint 04:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: Benjamint 04:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Good to see you around again, Looks pretty alright to me but you might get some mixed feelings about the hand in the shot (though that does provide a sense of scale). I personally find that File:Juvenile Candlebark leaves and stem.jpg provides more information. The article seems to lack adult leaves for comparison at the moment which is unfortunate. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

HuPao Spring[edit]

Please give some advice.

Creator: sh1019

Nominated by: Sh1019 (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Porsche 944 Turbo[edit]

A high resolution and fairly sharp image of a Porsche 944 turbo. Taken with WP:CAR image conventions in mind, this image show the vehicle from a 3/4 view with background which does not distract. Any feedback would be appreciated before I nominate this image for FP. --Leivick (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Daniel J. Leivick

Nominated by: Leivick (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The background is good, which can be a major car photo problem. The reflection on the car body itself is relatively clean. Depth of field seems a bit narrow, with the rear of the car somewhat out of focus, Seems like a reasonable choice for aperture however so its only a minor issue. Exposure seems relatively good, with no clipped shadows and only blown highlights on the front wheel. The main issue I'd take with it is the car placement relative to the light source, it puts the whole front of the car in shadow. I'd suggest making an edit with lifted shadows and seeing how that goes. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that lifting the shadows makes the car look kinda grey any other ideas? I can see what you are saying about the shadow issues on the monitor I am using right now, but on the calibrated monitor I originally adjusted the image on, there was plenty of detail visible in the darker areas. --Leivick (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I don't have any trouble on my monitors seeing detail in the shadow areas, its more of an aesthetic choice. Ideally the photo would be retaken with the light at the right angle. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Light dispersion conceptual waves[edit]

A very similar picture was nominated about a year ago (but was not promoted), however I think this one is better by far. It accurately displays the dispersion of light through a prism, and is quite well-made and an interesting picture to look at. I'm just not sure if I should put it up on the "real" picture nomination on WP:FPC.

Creator: Kieff

Nominated by: Mononomic (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I do like the wavelength changes with frequency, but do wonder if they are in the correct proportion (it looks fairly close, visible light ranges from about 400-700nm). I don't like the white light being divided into seven colours or the scale of the prism relative to the wavelength, they are likely to mislead the viewer. The continuous waves might also mislead the reader as to the true nature of light. Frankly I find File:Dispersion prism.jpg or File:PrismAndLight.jpg superior since they keep it simple rather than introduce lots of technical inaccuracies. The idea of showing wavelengths might be useful in illustrating Snell's law or something similar. I don't think it'd succeed at FPC because of all the possible enc problems. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/File:Culex mosquito.jpg

Rooster Portrait[edit]

Most informative picture of the head of a chicken. Its not used in any articles yet but IMO it could replace the taxobox image of Chicken

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 03:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This seems like it might have a reasonable chance at FPC to me. I placed it in Comb (anatomy) where it possibly has greatest EV, people might complain about being "cut off" under chicken, though you can add it there too. It could also be placed in Wattle (anatomy). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above, and I think it was a good move to put it in 'comb' as it deals with the inevitable "cutoff" opposes. FWIW I think it would be useful in 'chicken' but would disagree with it as a taxobox image as there's other images that show the full beast, which I would prefer for the taxobox. The main weaknesses I see are shallow DOF (taken at F/4.0 perhaps wasn't ideal, but the focus is in the right spot) and the background is perhaps a little bright, but there's nothing really too bad about it. I would support. --jjron (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nominating it at FPC Muhammad(talk) 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Atlanta skyline[edit]

Seems to be high quality. Would like some feedback

Creator: Evilarry

Nominated by: —Chris! _ct 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice enough picture, and I've only taken a quick look at the image page, but all the buildings appear to tilt in towards the centre - perhaps could do with some perspective correction. Also there appears to be some bright smudges in the sky, at a guess maybe blurred stars though they could be dust spots, which I'd probably suggest cloning out. May be worth reading the comments on this current FPC nom as well, as some may be relevant to this. --jjron (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I improve this picture if I want to nominate it for FP or VP?—Chris! _ct 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correcting the perspective vertically, and any tilt would be a good first step. Noodle snacks (talk)

Seconder

Dala-dala[edit]

A share taxi, dala-dala bus in Dar es Salaam

Want feedback on quality and EV

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Composition of original is weak, with another bus cluttering the frame, and the base of a water tower "growing" out of the top of the bus. I like the alternative better, although it's not impressive enough to be FP. In my view, for mundane subjects such as buses, which one can see everyday, you need a more stunning photo. I'm less sure of what the Valued Image project is looking for so can't really comment on that yet. Fletcher (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with the first one - can anyone else see all those streaks all over it? I'm guessing you took it through the (dirty) window of another vehicle? Agree with Fletcher's other comments about it, and it also looks to be significantly tilted. The second one is more interesting and looks better quality, though doesn't seem to be taken at the happiest of angles for EV. --jjron (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like it was shot through a dirty window... that's just not going to work most of the time, unless you can clean it off -- or open the window. Fletcher (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know about the dirty glass :-( Muhammad(talk) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Ganesha[edit]

A nice representation of a dancing Ganesha, and the play of light and shade. Big enough. Encyclopaedic value can be evaluated by knowing the following aspects from article FA Ganesha quoting:

"He (Ganesha) may be portrayed standing, dancing,"
"Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse or rat."
"The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms." - eight arms here.

Creator: Jean-Pierre Dalbéra, uploaded by redtigerxyz

Nominated by: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yes, this image is encyclopedic but it is unlikely to succeed at FPC because:

There's enough purple and green chromatic aberration to make me reach for my 3D glasses.
The shadows are full of chromatic noise and occasionally obscure detail.
The subject is poorly cut out, see e.g. top centre and bottom right.

Hope this helps. MER-C 04:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not cut off, the sculpture is like that. Can the chromatic aberration be corrected? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the stock photoshop lens distortion filters CA can be improved in some areas, but it seems to make it worse in others, you could try spending a few hours selectively desaturating the cyan channel to improve matters, I don't know if it'd help red without effecting the rest of the image though. I'd like to add to the list that whoever cut out the image from it's background did a pretty average job, the square edges of the cropping are extremely clear. You would probably be better off with a black point adjustment if you were trying to kill noise. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Varaha[edit]

A stone relief at Mahabalipuram showing the Hindu boar-headed god Varaha (centre) carrying his consort - the earth goddess Prthvi

The resolution of the image is good, most of the sculpture is intact and the central character of Varaha's iconography can be seen.

Creator: mountainamoeba from flickr, uploaded and cropped by Redtigerxyz

Nominated by: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sorry, this would be unlikely to succeed at FPC. Without knowing the original sculture, the sculpture is pretty clearly cutoff in the image all around - top left, bottom, sides - and appears to be tilted. For interest's sake, how much did you crop off the original image? Also lacks enough information, e.g., where the original sculpture is, what it actually depicts, etc. Lighting is less than ideal. It's not a criteria, but to overcome some issues some images have a 'WOW' factor; honestly this doesn't. --jjron (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Durga[edit]

The image is large enough to show the texture of the paper of the painting. A nice composition and use in about 10 wiki article.

Creator: Durga (the initial revision), Redtigerxyz (new)

Nominated by: Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment. Blurry- I assume that this is a scan from a book, rather than a photograph of the actual painting itself. Part of the mount's foot is cut off. Ideally, the caption should identify the identity of each of the figures in the image). Who are those guys up in the clouds? Is there an article about the specific mythical event that this image depicts? Spikebrennan (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the clouds the Devas, celestial beings watching the event, are seen. The story is written in the Devi Mahatmya and Devi Bhagavata and is the background of the Durgapuja, the annual hindufestival in autumn. I have added this information to the description of the file, but I don't

know, why it is not seen? --62.178.254.120 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Friday Prayers[edit]

IMO, the image has high EV. I wanted feedback on the quality; its not perfect since the lighting was not ideal. The clock was showing the wrong time, should it be fixed?

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

EV most probably. It is too much of a snapshot to be a successful featured picture in my view. It might be a candidate for the valued picture program whenever that ends up opening. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Guajajara woman and child[edit]

We need some good photographs showing mothers or motherhood and I think this photograph is relevant, vivid, clear, and insightful, and comes with an approved free license.

Creator: Agência Brasil

Nominated by: DavidBailey (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Personally I would doubt the chances of this at FPC. Firstly it's used to illustrate Mother, yet the focus is clearly on the child. Additionally there's nothing that suggests that is actually the child's mother - it could easily be an aunt, friend, whatever; the image page simply says "Guajajara woman and child", which doesn't indicate it's her child. Re illustrating Guajajara, well it adds little value given the article is as good as non-existent. The composition does little for me - cutoff at the bottom, distracting ugly blue chair (although obviously composition is a bit of a matter of personal taste). Finally I doubt the technical qualities are sufficient; as I said focus is on the child, not the mother, it's very soft focus, and it looks to have been overly downsampled, e.g., there is little detail in the hair, especially the mother's, and there's evidence of artifacting (look for example at the mother's hair, in the shadows such as under her chin, and the dark areas under her left arm). --jjron (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I neither speak nor understand Portugese, but doesn't mãe mean mother and filho mean child? Just a guess, given their cognates in French, which I can say a little for. Thegreenj 02:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given it's the English Wikipedia I read the English caption. FWIW, the caption on the original site says "Aldeia Cururu (MA) - Índios Guajajara reivindicam mais acesso a programas sociais e alternativas de renda. Operação na área combate exploração ilegal de madeira, incêndios criminosos e plantação de maconha", which Babelfish tells me translates to "Cururu village (ME) - Guajajara Indians demand more access the social and alternative programs of income. Operation in the area combat wooden illegal exploration, criminal fires and marijuana plantation". Nothing there at all about mothers and children. Incidentally there's a substantial debate about this image at Talk:Mother#Photograph_of_mother, which I'm guessing is largely why it ended up here. --jjron (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's nothing subversive going on here. I just noted that there is a dearth of photographs regarding mothers and children, or even of women and children. I put it here to get comments and find out if others consider it to be of good quality. Does the subject of the photograph have to be a mother to find out if its a good photograph? Evaluate it as woman and child, then. DavidBailey (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - PPR is largely considered a staging ground for FPC, thus any image here will be commented on in that context (unless a poster specifically asks for something different). One of the key criteria for FPC is the encyclopaedic value of an image, and that is determined by how well the image illustrates its articles. Thus why comments given above address that issue. And FWIW I have given quite comprehensive comments on the technical aspects of the photo beyond the EV. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with jjron; the picture is only so so; the mother is not in good focus; and damn that's an ugly chair. Although we definitely don't want only pictures of white mothers, I don't think this pic should have replaced the much stronger, featured picture of the migrant mother. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Best Wishes with Pansies, ca. 1900[edit]

Vivid, compelling use of color and form, surreal and erotically charged. Image appropriately featured in article "Pansy" in the "Pansies in the arts and culture" section.

Creator: ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated by: ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Can you try to tell us a bit more about the card (date/location published, artist if known)? There's not enough information to determine this image's copyright status. Importantly, the subject is not properly identified - this alone is enough to scuttle any prospect FPC. MER-C 09:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Bone cross-section[edit]

I feel that this image is well-made. I am not an expert on this subject, so I was wondering if anyone could put their input on this image. For example, if I missed labeling anything, or any parts of the bone are missing.

Creator: Pbroks13

Nominated by: --pbroks13^talk? 17:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This picture contains an error. While beautifully made the image incorrectly shows an articular surface on the major trochanter. As the major trochanter is not part of any joint, it does not have an articular surface but is instead the attachment site of the gluteus medius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteus_medius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annika.v.S. (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good start, but could probably do with a bit more work (esp. in terms of an FPC nomination). I'll mention a few things in terms of questions or short comments (but not intended to be a comprehensive list):

Why are the colours faded on the cross-section part? I don't find it enhances the image.
Why is the marrow red? And why does the marrow stop where it does, and so sharply? Marrow in the shaft of long bones is typically yellow, with red marrow in the head through the cancellous bone.
Would it be a good thing to show the epiphyseal plate?
Why the inconsistent use of more technical terms, e.g., you use periosteum, but don't say use cancellous/trabecular bone?
I personally find the blood vessels a bit dominant (and generic) for a diagram designed to illustrate bones.
I don't like way you've shown the cartilage. It seems confusing and misleading. For example, to read this diagram literally, since the cartilage can be seen inside the cutaway section of bone, it incorrectly indicates that the cartilage in fact goes through the bone structure, rather than just being found around the bone end.
If you are considering putting this at FPC, you'll need to quote some references on the image page.

I'll leave it there, but it would be a good idea to have a good read through the bone related articles, starting of course with bone. Thanks for your work so far. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I think I made correct adjustments. Is there anything I missed or anything else that could be improved? --pbroks13^talk? 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still have a few issues with it. You've changed the colour of the bone marrow, but it still just stops abruptly, and there's no sign of red marrow in the spongy bone. I also don't like how the bone and the marrow is the same colour - I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I recently did a bone dissection and the bone is certainly more white than the marrow. I don't believe the epiphyseal plates are in the right spot, and to me the main diagram in the Epiphyseal plate article, which yours resembles, is misleading. There may be variations, but in my experience epiphyseal plates are further down the bone and there's only one. This is more what I am thinking of and what I've seen in my first-hand experience, though the plate is not that prominent (if you do a Google image search on it you'll see some photos that show you what I mean). And FWIW your cartilage is too pointy at the spot where the second arrow is pointing; cartilage, at least healthy cartilage, should be very smooth. I personally don't feel it's up to FPC standards, but will leave it with you. (BTW you don't seem to have addressed my original 1, 5, and 7, but that's up to you). --jjron (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. About the abrupt stop for the yellow marrow, its for the same reason the bone stops abruptly. Also, the red marrow, where is it in the spongy bone? I read its in the "spaces" but, being also no expert on the subject, I'm not sure where exactly it would be. I fixed the Epiphyseal plate, bone color problem, and the cartilage's pointy-ness (I haven't uploaded the new image yet). A few things though. The reason I didnt do #1 is because if I kept the color the same, the lighting wouldnt really work too well. It looks odd without a color change. For #5, I actually removed some of the blood vessels, is there still too much? I havent added sources yet (#7), but I will once I feel that the picture is up to par. Thanks for all your help! --pbroks13^talk? 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will leave it up to you where to stop the marrow, I see what you mean. I tend to prefer those sort of wavy angled ends (not sure if you'll understand what I mean by that, but more like what you show up around the 'medullary caivity' label (note the typo on 'caivity' BTW, also this version has a typo on Epiphyseal (Ephiphyseal) which you may have fixed)) when you're indicating that the thing is being illustrated to finish somewhere where it doesn't really, rather than showing it as an abrupt break. Re the red marrow, yes that is correct, it is in the spaces in the spongy bone, i.e., it basically fills in the spaces. OK, ultimately up to you I guess how you think the colours work best. Re the blood vessels, didn't realise you'd removed any since you just put this newer version over the old one rather than as an edit, but fair enough. Spose you've just got to get it to the standard where you're happy. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

On the proximal end of the femur, there are two growth plates. The previous image was correct, with one between the diaphysis and the head of the femur (which is an ossification center) and the other between the greater trochanter and the diaphysis. The only section of the proximal end of the femur that articulates is the head. The greater tronchater is for muscle attachment. Also, you may want to do some research on the nutrient foramen for placement of your blood vessel.

The Fall of Lucifer[edit]

Just in time for Halloween

Creator: Gustave Doré

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Cumulonimbus over NYC[edit]

This image is one of the few that show the whole cloud without any obstructions, it has a relatively high resolution (comparing similar images) and pictures a realistic view from an aircraft (blue haze, buildings, rivers). It is also pretty sharp and shows a lot of detail. As to the stitching errors, I took the three segments in a matter of 6 seconds with a full-automatic camera, and the plane was moving really fast (i.e. they are unavoidable).

Creator: jezFabi

Nominated by: JezFabi (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Waimea Bay Sunset[edit]

This is a picture of a beautiful sunset over a historic beach on Oahu's famous North Shore

Creator: JRobinson

Nominated by: JRobinson (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Whilst aesthetically pleasing, sunsets are unlikely to pass featured picture candidacy because they generally have very limited encyclopaedic value Noodle snacks (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Panorama of the Flaming Cliffs[edit]

Panorama of the Flaming Cliffs, Mongolia, at sunset

One of my finest panoramas. Good quailty, color and contrast. I'm new to this whole Featured pictures stuff, so i'm posting it here first to get some comments.

Creator: zoharby

Nominated by: Zoharby (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This looks to be very good at image page size - sorry, 12MB is too big for me to download the full size version (I can't see why it needs to be more than 2 - 3MB at that image size). Bigger file sizes seem to make some voters happy though, and the main negative I can see at image page size is that the shadows are pretty heavy. The other concern that I have is that the short article says: "The rock gives off a glowing orange colour, hence the nickname", yet it all looks pretty brownish yellow here - is that a problem, perhaps like nominating an image of Uluru that didn't show up red? --jjron (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've ran it through some noise cleaning, saved it with a bit more compression, and got it down to 4MB. Played with the levels a bit to make the shadows a bit less deep. Also added a little saturation to give it a more orange look, while still keeping it natural looking. --zoharby (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not so sure more saturation is a good idea. The first version sort of gave me the impression of being a bit over-saturated to begin with. Remember that the goal for featured pictures is ultimately an accurate depiction of reality, not the most asthetically pleasing photograph possible. It does currently give an impression of being turned up to 11. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're probably right about the saturation. The first version is clearly an accurate depiction of reality, as it was composed from the original pictures that were taken without any 'vivid' camera setting. I put another version, same as last one but without the extra saturation. Do you guys think it's good enough for FPC? --zoharby (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - My gut feeling is that it would be worth nominating, but I wouldn't want to make any guarantees about its success. I still worry about the conflict with the nickname/article description and the image (which is not saying your image is incorrect regarding what you saw, just that it maybe doesn't show the cliffs at their prime). Some of these things just get to the point where you simply give it a try - sometimes you 'win', sometimes you don't. Good luck :-). --jjron (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Zoharby. --jjron (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikumi National park Landscape[edit]

Good quality and EV

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What does this have over your panorama? Noodle snacks (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken near a pond (or an artificial lake), the vegetation is greener and the mountain in the background is better seen. Muhammad(talk) 04:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Merchandise Mart[edit]

This image illustrates Merchandise Mart in Chicago Illinois. Once th largest building in the world it is still the 20th largest building and an important example of early 20th century architecture in the US.

Creator: © 2008, Jeremy Atherton, JeremyA

Nominated by: Bikingshaun (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would like this image to be considered for WP:FPC but I don't know how to nominate it correctly. Bikingshaun (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate it straight off the bat because I could see a few minor issues with it that might hurt it's chances of success. I have added an edit here for you to look at and confirm the colour etc is accurate. Perspective correction, sharpen and a mild levels adjustment were performed. There is still some odd distortion going on though as the levelness of the building varies with each vertical. Noodle snacks (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks to be tilted; that back corner appears to be too high for where you would expect it to be, suggesting a CCW rotation would help. This looks worse in the edit than the original, though comparing them more closely this may just be apparent due to the perspective correction done by Noodle. I suppose the best thing is to make the front edge dead vertical, but a cursory check suggests it pretty much is...hmmm. --jjron (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Common Housefly (Musca Domestica)[edit]

Composition, lighting, sharpness and clarity. Comments requested. Was wondering if it's worth submitting to FPC.

Creator: Kamranki

Nominated by: Kamran (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The subject of the photo is way too small in proportion to the size of the photo. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is sharp and in good focus at the top of the fly, but DOF is very shallow. The cable it is sitting on makes for a nice general photo, but in terms of Encyclopaedic value it detracts as it is distracting from the subject (the fly). And as Spike said, in an image this size, the fly would need to be substantial part of the image, but in this case it is perhaps only 20%. As well as this we already have fly FPs, which always raises the bar somewhat for new nominations. The photo is good, but honestly I wouldn't like its chances at FPC. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hurricane Isabel[edit]

Good quality, good encyclopedic value, etc.

Creator: NASA

Nominated by: –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's rather obvious, but I don't like how it's off-centered. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a problem, given how close to on-center it is compared to many other similar images. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query - Don't we already have 2 FPs for this hurricane? It's not that special, Julian. Can I call you Jules? ;) —Ceran ♦ (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but it was a beautiful hurricane with excellent documentation of satellite imagery. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, almost quoting Jjron, most hurricane/TC pictures are pretty good, like this one, but usually the hurricane/tropical cyclone that is the subject needs to be particularly unique for it to pass. I honestly don't think it's that special. For reference, here are the existing FPs, Image:Hurricane Isabel 18 sept 2003 1555Z.jpg and Image:Hurricane Isabel eye from ISS (edit 1).jpg. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sunrise Mt Uluguru[edit]

Sunrise over the Uluguru Mountains

A good quality, aesthetic image of the mountains. I wanted feedback on its EV.

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 10:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm assuming you know half of it is blown (i think, i haven't checked). I'd be worried about the EV since most of the main subject is obscured by mist. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I am aware of the the blown parts, but I was trying to capture the amazing view, and it was pretty much blown :) Muhammad(talk) 14:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd say that your image in that article that failed a previous nom has higher EV. I find the blown areas here a bit disconcerting; it actually makes it a bit uncomfortable to look at. Blown, overexposed or inconsistently lit sky used to mean an almost certain fail at FPC, but some have recently got through (I think it may actually have been one of Noodle's noms a week or two ago that got good support and where the inconsistent sky with a very bright section at the left didn't even rate a mention from voters, so maybe things are changing...). --jjron (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious as to which one you were refering too, it was probably bright, but I doubt it was blown (I am usually pretty careful about blown highlights). Noodle snacks (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think it was blown, just quite bright to the left of image. This is the one: Image:Austins Ferry and Derwent River from Poimenna Reserve.jpg. Things with skies like that used to always get opposed with comments such as 'taken at the wrong time of day', so it was interesting that it wasn't mentioned. I think there may have been others too (not yours) where the sky doesn't seem to attract the attention that it used to, so as I said things may be changing. --jjron (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I did nominate one panorama which got the "wrong time of day" comment a few times. The thing is that dawn/dusk often look better, but they also usually don't help the enc either (So long as you can manage the daylight dynamic range). Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks jjron and Noodle for the comments. I think I will give it a go, it can't hurt to try :) Muhammad(talk) 15:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Muhammad. --jjron (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of a dragonfly[edit]

This macro shot clearly emphasises the intricate pattern on the wings of a dragonfly.

Creator: Ganeshrg

Nominated by: Ganeshrg (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would appreciate it if someone can critique this image and carry out any improvements, if necessary on this image. I am happy with the contrast and sharpness on this but if any of you think it can be improved, please go ahead and do it. I would be grateful.
- Whilst the image has some asthetic value it is not particularly sharp, there is some CA and the main subject is not entirely in focus. There are lots of images on the dragonfly page that show as much detail in the wings but also have the body visible. You also need to include the image in an article to be eligiable for featured picture status. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've uploaded an alternative version of it. You can see it on the image page or here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wings_of_a_dragonfly2.jpg

Seconder

Fiat Palio Stile Multijet Diesel[edit]

This is the first Wikipedia photograph of the Fiat Palio Stile Multijet diesel in India.

Creator: Ganeshrg

Nominated by: Ganeshrg (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I would appreciate it if someone could try and improve the overall image quality on this. There is a bit of glare on the windscreen and the A-pillar due to shooting in the harsh afternoon sun.
- I don't think this would pass FPC. Part of the front of the car is cut off, the front bonnet is a bit dark (car should have been parked the other way). The suspension isn't in a neutral position and the car isn't very clean in places. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have a whole lot more images of this car. Its on my Picasa album at http://picasaweb.google.com/GuNsOnPicasa/MyCar?authkey=owOISjNwjc4 I didnt want to cram wikipedia with images so only put up the one I thought was best. You folks can take a look at the album and suggest which would make a better contribtion here. It is of great value to the article because its the only photo of a Stile Multijet that I have come across on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshrg (talk • contribs) 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - These pages are principally designed as a critque prior to submission for wikipedia's featured pictures. The critques here cover a range of aspects but either way your contributions are valued. I think your first submission was the best, and it'd be the one you should put into the relevant articles, however I don't think it meets the featured picture criterea for the reasons stated above. I think the case is much the same with the rest of your picasa albums as for encyclopedic purposes an image that is not "cut off" in any way is desirable. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Chelodina longicollis[edit]

I feel that this image displays and illustrates the turtle very well (Unlike two of the other photos I took today Image:Common snakeneck turtle (Chelodina longicollis) 1.jpg Image:Common snakeneck turtle (Chelodina longicollis) 2.jpg) and is encyclopedic.

Creator: Bidgee

Nominated by: Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The photo itself is quite OK, but I'd have a couple of issues. Firstly, in Australian usage turtle refers to species that live in/around water (see here). Being photographed on the grass with no water in sight thus looks rather unnatural for an Aust turtle. Secondly the infobox image in that article is already featured - while that doesn't mean that another image of this species can't be featured, it does tend to make it a little more difficult, especially if the EV is slightly compromised as mentioned above. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have liked it to be near water (Photo was taken about 100m from a lagoon to my west and 300m to my east is the Murrumbidgee River) and say it was moving from a lagoon to a river . I wasn't going to 'aid' it to water since I'm very careful of any type of wildlife. Bidgee (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it was there then removed, but at the time of writing it was not in the article, so therefore would be ineligable for a featured picture currently. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My idea is not to add it to the article just yet. I'll rather find out what the review about the photograph is before doing so. Bidgee (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Fabrizio Giovanardi, Oulton Park 2008[edit]

I feel this image was one of the better ones I took whilst on my first trip to a motorsport meeting. Anyway, I feel the photo gives the viewer a sense of speed, BTCC cars usually travel round this corner in excess of 90mph, whilst still maintaining focus on the subject. The image also gives a good example of the phenomenon known as "roll", see flight dynamics, where the car leans over to one side slightly as it turns through the corner at a relatively high speed. At the moment, I just wish to get an idea of where this photo would be on the scale of 1-10, obviously I know it isn't going to be 10 nor 1, bhut still back to my point - I'm hoping any further comments on the picture will give me some advise for my next trip to Oulton Park. The kit used, however, is unlikely to change so please may I kindly request no comments asking to get a "DSLR camera" as the camera I have at the moment is perfectly fine. :-)

Creator: Skully Collins, aka Phill

Nominated by: Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 20:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very nice. If you're aiming for FP, know that the standard that's set for moving racecars is very high (compare these FPs: Image:Heidfeld and Rosberg - 2008 Melb GP.jpg, Image:Bruno Senna 2006 Australian Grand Prix-3.jpg, Image:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg). However, if you're just looking for some ideas for next time, there are a couple things you might try. First, I'd definitely switch the camera off action mode and onto aperture priority. Stop the aperture down to f/8 or so; not only should this fix a lot of this picture's chromatic aberration problems, but you'll also get a more than twice as long exposure. It'll be harder to keep the camera level for the entire pan, but it will greatly exaggerate the background effect, which is one of the main things to worry about when panning. AmgMoKio has a lot of examples of how to get creative with this. Try some other angles, too. I think if the car were to face the camera more, the leaning effect would be more apparent. Finally—and this one you have no control over—try shooting in some different weather. I'm guessing it was overcast when this was taken; the lighting isn't exactly dramatic. You may want to try again on a sunnier day. Definitely, though, you've got the panning down; the car is nice and sharp. If you get a chance to go back, play around with different ways to shoot and see how things go. Thegreenj 21:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I'd give this a strong 7 or 8 on your scale.)[reply]
Could I add something that you can consider whatever your camera. I'm not a big fan of the composition in terms of your consideration of background elements. The armco looks like it's extending out of the roof of the car, and while you may argue that the marshals (?) in the orange suits add to the scene, the fact that their bright outfits make them such a strong element and yet they look so disinterested in the proceedings shown really leads to them just being a distraction. I'm not sure how much choice you get over where you position yourself, but I'd be seeking out a less distracting backdrop if possible. Good photo overall though. --jjron (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Eritrean Railway[edit]

Self-nom. I've recently returned from a visit to this fascinating railway. This, I believe, is one of the best photographs I took of it, and would like some opinions on whether it could be made suitable for featured image or not. I don't have many skills or software for photo manipulation, so if anyone can improve things like colour balance, etc, this would be greatly appreciated.

Creator: Tivedshambo

Nominated by: — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I like both the lighting and the composition a lot, and I'm sure this would pass easily were its technical quality higher. However, noise-reduction artifacts and a general lack of sharpness would likely be major impediments at a nomination. Since EXIF shows your camera settings are just about optimal, I don't know what to suggest other than that it must be the camera. If you can re-take the picture under similar conditions with a higher-quality camera, that might push it into FP-territory. I doubt this would pass FP, but it remains an excellent addition to its article. Thegreenj 22:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the camera - whilst it was one of the best in its price range when I bought it (nearly five years ago), it has seen a lot of use and is beginning to show its age. I hope to get a better camera soon, but it's unlikely I'll be back in Eritrea, at least in the foreseeable future. — Tivedshambo _{(t/c) (logged on as Pek)} 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this, and have done a small edit on it. I think it adds a bit more punch to the photo, but tried to avoid overdoing it. The original looked a bit washed out to me, which seems more common when shooting with small digicams, so I tried to account for that. Also did a bit of a sharpen. I didn't find the artefacts greenj mentions to be a deal breaker, but it does lack sharpness, and I think that would be the biggest issue. Bumping up the sharpness any more than this unfortunately did really bring out those artefacts. A downsize to about 1600px wide helps and still easily makes the FPC size limits, but consequently makes the central feature, the train, a bit insignificant in size. A bit more width would have been nice too, but the composition is pretty good. Personally I would support this at FPC despite it's technical faults. I think it's 'good enough' given the lack of photos of this part of the world. I can dump up a downsized version too if you'd like to look at it. --jjron (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Tivedshambo. --jjron (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis in defense mode[edit]

Nice, educational picture, captured in a rare mantis posture.

Creator: Tibor Duliskovich

Nominated by: Zoo Fari 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment. Not quite focused enough for FPC, but certainly a valuable and well-composed image. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Elvis-Meets-Nixon[edit]

Entertainer Elvis Presley meets U.S. President Richard Nixon in the Oval Office on December 21, 1970.

Well-known historical photo of two of the greatest recording artists of the 20th century.

Creator: Ollie Atkins (White House photographer; yes it's PD).

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

~~Oppose:~~ I believe it is a credible source but it is not enough to be deemable featurable. kdm85
- This is peer review, not FPC. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as an interesting 'news' photo, but I can see little EV to be honest. I don't think it's a good enough photo of either of them to be featured in isolation, which means it would have to be featured for the meeting. But what was the purpose of the meeting? Did the meeting lead to a change in Nixon's policies? Did it revolutionise Elvis' music? It seems to me like a general interest photo, but not anything significant beyond that, and I would therefore feel not really meeting the FPC aims of high EV. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's actually a remarkable story beyond the meeting that was photographed, and that story is the subject of a film that has its own WP article. The photo is also, apparently, the most-requested image in the National Archives. It's also featured on the Turkish wikipedia. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Spikebrennan. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Jupiter FPC's[edit]

I am wondering which of the following pictures have a decent chance at FPC.

Creator: JPL/NASA

Nominated by: Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Personally, I like the first one; however, it would be to small to be a FP. The second one is large enough, so it could have a shot. And, the third one is already a FP. --pbroks13^talk? 17:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Size rules don't apply to animations, so the first one is eligible. Thegreenj 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, then I would go with the first one. --pbroks13^talk? 16:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've always loved that first Voyager approach video, but haven't I seen it in (perhaps false) colour? I seem to remember it as such, and it had more impact. --jjron (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how do I withdraw the review page? Nergaal (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Just leave it here and it will be archived in due time. In the meantime we can leave a note here re the FPC nom, which will mean it won't be further reviewed. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Nergaal. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin at Black Moshannon State Park[edit]

The image clearly shows the cabin and the surrounding forest and is well lit and nicely composed. The image is used in the FA article about the park which the cabin is in and is large enough for FP. I am submitting this here as Juliancolton suggested I nominate this for Featured Picture. The cabin is on a bit of slope, but the image may also be slightly tilted.

Creator: Ruhrfisch

Nominated by: Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The log cabin is very clearly modern, with tar shingles and steps made in a more modern style. However, we can turn that modernity to our advantage by adding it into the Log cabin article - there's a section on the creation of modern log cabins in national parks, but no examples of these modern log cabins. This would solve any notability issues, and make it an excellent candidate for FP. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks, I guess I did not make it clear enough - I think it is notable as a CCC-built cabin within a historic district in the park that is listed on the NRHP. The cabin was built by the CCC between 1933 and 1937, although as you note the roof and steps are more modern replacements (since it is still rented on a regular basis). The log cabin itself and the stone chimney are original. See this reference for the NRHP nomination. [1] I will also add the image to the log cabin article next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following these comments, I think that this picture is still top-notch. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I'll second this. A little pre-nomination work can help make a nomination more sure, that done, I think we've got an excellent FPC. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have nominated it at FPC here Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western part of Pamban Island[edit]

The whole western part of Pamban island is covered in the picture, including the famed temple complex of Rameswaram and the television tower in the island, the tallest in India

Creator: Ravichandar84

Nominated by: Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 14:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This probably needs a comment. It's a useful image for its article, but the reality is that it's not that high quality, in particular it is very soft throughout. Also appears to have a slight clockwise tilt. It also may 'show' a lot of things, but most of them are so far away you can't make out any detail, for example you mention it shows that temple complex, but what can you really see of it? So it's useful, but unfortunately it wouldn't be successful at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Typhoon Jangmi[edit]

This image shows a well formed and powerful Typhoon. It has a great structure and a well defined eye, one of the best looking storms since Cyclone Monica in 2006. The only thing that may hold it back from being a Featured picture may be that it's not fully centered. Any thoughts on this picture?

Creator: Cyclonebiskit

Nominated by: Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I will try to fix it tomorrow by cropping the end off.--Kirk76 ^{1854 Atlantic} ^{Hurricane Season} 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is here

Wow, it looks much better in the cropped version. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

If it's cropped, it's too closely cropped for it to pass nomination. You can't see the rest of the scene. If it isn't cropped, then the picture is unbalanced. Potapych (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crop is way too small. The original is excellent, by the way. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 17:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dean[edit]

Hurricane Dean as seen from the ISS on August 18, 2007.

A great photo of Hurricane Dean. I was amazed when I first saw it on Wikimedia Commons. But it's a little blurry, while significantly so on the lower-left corner of the image. What can be done to fix this picture up so that it's no longer blurry, the resolution does not suffer, and it is a guaranteed featured picture?

Creator: ArielGold, but fixed up by Tom.

Nominated by: Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 15:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"What can be done to fix this picture up so that it's no longer blurry, the resolution does not suffer, and it is a guaranteed featured picture?" Quite frankly, without faking the picture to add detail that doesn't exist, nothing can be done to cure the blurriness and retain the resolution, and there's no way of guaranteeing anything FP status. In fact I find the whole picture pretty soft, and there's quite a lot of noise as well, most visible in the eye, and you wouldn't be able to do a lot about it. Hurricane pictures often struggle a bit at FPC, largely due to the fact that we see quite a lot of them, and in general they tend to look pretty similar. So there usually has to be something a bit unique about how they're taken for them to succeed, and I doubt that this picture has that 'something special'. See Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena/Weather for a few that are already featured, and for some reason there's also one in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Views of Earth from space and satellites. Thanks anyway. --jjron (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Fireworks San Jose 2008[edit]

This uncropped 1-second exposure shows two fireworks bursts that fill the frame, as well as the smoke from the exploded shells.

Creator: Ikluft

Nominated by: Ikluft (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Your main problem is the top of the uppermost firework being cut off. MER-C 01:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Varecia variegata foot with toilet-claw[edit]

This images shows a close, detailed view of a ruffed lemur's foot and toilet-claw, anatomical features rarely seen in this much detail by the general public.

Creator: Visionholder

Nominated by: Visionholder (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi there, Visionholder! Long time no see. I see that you're moving everywhere around the encyclopedia. Keep it up.

Anyway, I don't really think I would support this at FPC, it's really only a foot. A detailed image of the actual image would be great, though. Could you take one? — Ceranthor (Sing) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean a picture of the full animal, I have a few posted (such as Image:Varecia_variegata_suspensory_posture1.jpg and Image:Varecia_variegata_suspensory_posture2.jpg, but they've got noisy backgrounds or less-than-perfect lighting, so they're not good candidates for FPC. I was hoping the close-up photos of specific lemur features might earn something... but if not, I'll keep trying. It may just take me a while to get some FPC-quality pictures, since I need both a better camera and a chance to photograph lemurs outside of a zoo setting. As for photographing anything else like this, that's not likely. These photos were taken during a yearly physical exam that I was able to attend, and the SB Zoo's entire lemur colony is leaving the zoo next year. I won't get this chance again for at least another year, if I'm very, very lucky. Thanks anyway for your feedback! –Visionholder (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think this is really good shot, considerably better than the one below, and of excellent EV when you realise what it is illustrating (it made go and check out the related article; I had never heard of toilet claws before). Unfortunately the quality is again a bit short (that digital zoom again, and shutter speed on this one is even slower). Also the background isn't ideal, though you probably can't really get these things to pose for the photo under normal circumstances, and other than that composition is pretty good. I have downloaded this and am going to have a bit of a fiddle with it to see if can help out at all with the quality issues, though honestly I doubt I'll be able to do enough unfortunately. Will drop a note with how I go. --jjron (talk) 13:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a try. I can help a bit with sharpness, but it loses a lot of size (essentially 'undoing' the digital zoom effect) which is OK, but unfortunately there's a awful lot of noise, especially on the dark fur in the background. I tried noise reduction but anything strong enough to begin to fix the noise wipes out too much detail in the fur, etc. The edited version did look better, but it wouldn't get it to FP quality. (Sorry, I did the edit on a shared computer and it got wiped before I had chance to upload it; I could redo it if you really want to see it, but given no response above, I'll assume it's a 'no' anyway.) --jjron (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do appreciate the effort. Thank you for trying! –Visionholder (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Possibly would make a good candidate at Wikipedia:Valued pictures if that does get off the ground. --jjron (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lemur catta spur and antebrachial gland[edit]

This images shows a close, detailed view of a Ring-tailed Lemur's spur and antebrachial gland, anatomical features rarely seen in this much detail by the general public.

Creator: Visionholder

Nominated by: Visionholder (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a very interesting picture, but on FPC standards I doubt that it would make it through. It reminds me a bit of a nom going back some months of a close-up of a wallaby joey getting into or out of its mother's pouch. That was higher quality, and didn't do that well. The quality on this isn't great, full-res is really quite blurry and noisy, a consequence of the camera and settings used under the conditions it was taken (unfortunately it appears you even used digital zoom - please disable it). Even downsizing it doesn't hide the problems I've identified. It is good, but imo, not FPC quality. --jjron (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately for my camera to zoom in that close, digital zoom was required. (Maybe someday I'll be able to afford a digital camera that doesn't require digital zoom.) Oh well... –Visionholder (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can sympathise with your camera issues, however can only urge you to give up on the digital zoom. A further out shot without the digital zoom would have allowed you to crop into the picture and still easily exceed the minimum FPC size limits; if you stick to the digital zoom I'll go out on a limb and say you'll never get an FPC quality shot. With a lower zoom you would also get less effect from camera shake, and your camera would also have possibly set itself to a higher shutter speed, also assisting in better quality (I assume this was taken with basically auto settings, as I realise these cameras allow only limited manual control).
    FWIW I believe you can get an FPC quality shot with your camera, though I'm not suggesting it will be easy (on the other hand it's not necessarily easy getting an FPC regardless of what camera you've got, it's just the less 'able' your camera, the harder it is). I have recently purchased a later release in your camera line for work, the IXUS 80IS (SD1100 IS), and I think I would be able to get similar quality shots under the right conditions as my old Canon A95, which I have gained FPs using. With less manual control and the higher number of megapixels I feel these cameras are more limited than my A95, despite being 'newer and better' technology, but it would be possible. --jjron (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Waverley Cemetery[edit]

Good quality image with a nice blend of colors (sky,ocean,dusk,marble) with the angel looking down over the cemetery adding a spiritual feeling. This cemetery has been used for numerous movies due to its stunning and unusual location by the sea.

Creator: Wyp

Nominated by: Boylo (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There is quite noticable haloing from the HDR, not honestly sure if that'd be popular or not. I don't think the lighting is the best from an encyclopaedia point of view either, the foreground has a serious blue tinge to it. I'd probably also argue that a wide panorama would give more context to the scene. Those potential issues aside it is also pretty small, and a bit on the noisy side. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Chad Dawson[edit]

It is a wonderful image of a boxing match taking place between Chad Dawson and Eric Harding.

Creator: Bukaj

Nominated by: Rvk41 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unfortunately size will be an issue - it must be a minimum of 1000px on at least one side (exceptions can be made, but I will guarantee you they wouldn't be here). And personally I feel it might benefit from a bit of a crop as well, which would further reduce size. It's a nice action photo, and if it's possible to get it up at a bigger size, we could have a closer look. --jjron (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pope John Paul II funeral[edit]

Intresting subject.

Creator: Agência Brasil

Nominated by: Bewareofdog 22:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Agree that it's interesting, but for mine it's a sloppy composition. Some could be improved with a crop and tilt correction, but one thing that worries me is that poor old JPII's casket is almost falling out of the edge of the picture, when a good argument could be made that that should be the central feature. The cut off cross at the top doesn't help either. --jjron (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Earth Magnetic Field Declination from 1590 to 1990[edit]

Animation showing the movement of the Earth's Magetic North Pole, and the corresponding change in the Magnetic declination between the years 1590 and 1990.

Creator: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) http://www.usgs.gov/

Nominated by: Mike (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Is there any particular reason why 1590 and 1990 were chosen as the 'bookends'? --jjron (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is based on a data from a research paper: Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records.
While I'd prefer a longer pause at the end, I'd support this pic at FPC if it is moved to a better section in the article it illustrates and/or added to another similar article. It's hypnotyzing to watch the moving fields... Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Field Surgery[edit]

In an underground surgery room, behind the front lines on Bougainville, an American Army doctor operates on a U.S. soldier wounded by a Japanese sniper

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swing bridge[edit]

Inspired by the nom of a nice photo of a bridge at FPC, I found this informative animation of an unusual type of movable bridge. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Kbh3rd

Nominated by: Spikebrennan (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I dunno... it's missing some frames and there's a long pause before it swings back. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is interesting to watch, but I'm not convinced the timings are that great either. Quality-wise, apart from being tiny, it looks rather washed out to me. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nilkanth Varni[edit]

Image of Swaminarayan (considered a form of god by followers of the Swaminarayan Faith) in the form of Nilkanth Varni on pilgrimage across India.The significance of this image is that it shows the type of life Nilkanth Varni led as a teenager on this pilgimage that started at the age of 11 in Chhapaiya in 1792 and ended at the age 18 in the year 1799 at Loj, a village in Junagadh district.

Swaminarayan took the name Nilkanth Varni and set of on a pilgrimage of India at the tender age of 11. Over 7 years he traveled across the country in the late 18th century - this picture gives a clear indication of how he looked and what he wore, used and did during that period.

Creator: Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते}

Self-Nominated by: Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When was this painting made? If it's pretty recent, it won't stand a chance at FPC because of the flaws in the painting, but if it's old you might stand a chance. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Its more than 100 years old, though the exact date is not available. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Saturn F ring animation[edit]

Nothing is cooler than Saturn. Nothing.

Creator: NASA; uploader:WolfmanSF

Nominated by: Knulclunk (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think that no one has reviewed this because no one has any clue what it is. Could you expand the caption or provide more info? Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I get the gist of what it is - having said which the 'reason' given above doesn't do much to encourage voters. Have a read of the image description page, there's a bit of detail there. I just don't know that this does it for me as far as FPC is concerned, I guess it shows what it intends to, but how it ranks on the scale of all our Saturn pics (without checking, I think there's already more than one featured) I'm not sure. --jjron (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The phenomenon is important, but wasn't well-explained. I've tweaked it. The last sentence comes from Planetary ring (I was checking I got it right, and then found a better explanation, so thought... why not?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam 360[edit]

A 360 Degree panorama of the city of Dar es Salaam.

The only image of the city currently available that shows all the features shown in this image.

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 12:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment. Is the horizon a little wobbly, or is that the true topography? Compare this more dramatic example. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No the horizon is not wobbly. At the horizon are the Pugu Forests, Pugu Hills and the Kisarawe Mountains which apparently make the horizon look wobbly. Muhammad(talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, support. I suggest that the image page describe the vantage point from which this was taken, and point out a few landmarks that are visible in the image. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have updated the description. What do you think? Muhammad(talk) 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks great to me. Non-African readers may benefit from knowing that the body of water is the Indian Ocean (unless I'm mistaken). Spikebrennan (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - lol, i'd support this just to eventually see such a rediculously wide image on the main page :P Noodle snacks (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support it too, nice panorama, lots of detail to see. I'm not sure it would be our longest/widest panorama though, there was a chinese tapestry (?) a couple of months ago that was extremely long. I think to make the thumbnail a bit more viewable, the image width should be set to more like 3000ish. Admittedly, it takes a bit longer to load but is more useful in an article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC by Muhammad. --jjron (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam City Center Skyline[edit]

Dar es Salaam city center Skyline.

A high resolution image. No other images of the skyline of such quality or resolution exist freely.

Creator: Muhammad

Nominated by: Muhammad(talk) 12:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Shingon goma ceremony[edit]

Hi, I took this picture, it isn't the greatest picture in the world but the goma ceremony is usually performed behind closed doors so this one was a rare opportunity. Let me know if there is anything I ought to do to touch it up.

Creator: Shii

Nominated by: Shii (tock) 04:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's backlit so unless you are going for some artistic contre-jour effect, I think this will be regarded as a mistake -- background is over-exposed, highlights blown on the table, the foreground somewhat muted due to the lighting. The monk is also obscured by clutter in the foreground; I wonder if standing to the right of, or behind, the fire you would get a better view of what the monk is doing, and get a better exposure. It's also rather noisy, as you can see in the large continuous black regions, such as the monk's robe and in the corners. I understand it was a rare opportunity, but I doubt this would get selected as a FP. Fletcher (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aiming for a FP necessarily-- the lamp in the middle is probably a red flag-- but if there is any Photoshop work that could make this picture more comprehensible I would much appreciate suggestions. Shii (tock) 00:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try a shadows adjustment in Photoshop. It will reduce the overexposure. Muhammad(talk) 12:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Black swan head[edit]

A Commons quality image, aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion), technically sound (beak may be a bit blown) clearly depicts the head of the animal which is particularly useful in the article as the details of the head and beak are not that clear in any of the full body images. Seems of a similar quality to other featured animal portraits (examples , , , ). Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Benjamint444

Nominated by: Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You're right, I think the beak is somewhat blown which hurts it chances. Fletcher (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar shots but a bit more zoomed in on the beak, mine suffer from poor depth of field and this one is the same to some extent, the beak seems a bit OOF. Honestly the colour doesn't look very realistic to me either, far too saturated. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have uploaded one of my own images from quite a while ago, I think the colour in that is significantly more realistic, plus no blown highlights etc. Higher resolution too. The lighting is a bit dull though Noodle snacks (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Radcliffe Camera[edit]

I think this would be a suitable Featured Picture because it is a good image of a well known an historical building in Oxford. The image is of high resolution.

Creator: Tom Murphy VII

Nominated by: TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is quite a nice shot, if a little unsharp at the top, and it has some perspective distortion. Unfortunately there is already a FP of the same building; although I believe the criteria just require it to be among the best, not necessarily the best, work we have, people might object to making two FPs of this building unless they are substantially different. And this shot isn't technically as good as the existing one, IMO. However, your sky is gorgeous, and the ground level perspective is arguably more encyclopedic, as that's what most people would see. Fletcher (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008
(Fletcher has already said some of this, but I wrote this last night and my internet dropped out before saving, so I'll put it up anyway.) It's pretty good, overall quality seems reasonable, maybe a little softer than usually favoured at FPC (especially at the top). I can however see some compositional issues that could be a problem. It appears to have a bit of a tilt to the right (fixable) and could do with some perspective correction (also fixable). On composition, I don't like that big building that pokes out at the right; I don't know the location, but it looks like if the photographer could have centred on the doorway that's currently to the left of centre, it would have made a happier composition and possibly obscured that big building. There's also an unfortunate big shadow from another building falling across front and centre of this photo, along with some other harsh shadows, which should have been avoidable by shooting at a slightly different time. The fence being cutoff at the bottom just looks a little awkward. The first two things are fixable with a good edit, the last three only with a reshoot. I'm not sure how significant the 'unfixables' would be at FPC, but combined they may be a problem. --jjron (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the nomination of the existing FP for comparison, which funnily enough is also tilted (it's not the building that's tilted is it?), and for whatever reason is not in the article on the place. --jjron (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I put the FP back on Radcliffe Camera (but didn't remove the subject picture). And that's a good point -- for a 250 year old building, I would be a little surprised if it's perfectly level. Fletcher (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Tiled roof over the Weolbong Temple bell[edit]

Thought this picture is aesthetically pleasing showing the sharp contrasting lines and shapes of the roofing tiles against the infinity of the sky.

Okay, thought I was following the step by step direction here but they are just too convoluted for a novice user to decipher. Rather than make a further mess of this I'm going to abandon this effort and allow the next capable editor that comes along to delete this mess. My apologizes Steve46814 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, i have encounted this bug before, not sure what causes it. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a bug, it's simple user error. Filling in the form and saving results in the substitution of the details entered into a template so that it looks like what you see here, not like this. The user deleted the closing double braces }} during the original creation, which means the substitution doesn't work, thus the problems seen. Go back to the original page I've linked to, click on Edit, whack in the double braces at the end, and click on Show Preview (don't Save), and you'll see it loads up properly (given the details entered). --jjron (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did just what you said and it worked just like you said. That you so much for the explanation.--Steve46814 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem; all that stuff was opaque to me too a couple of year's back when I first got on here. :-) Just keep practising, and if you accidentally muck-up someone else will undoubtedly be able to fix it up if you can't. --jjron (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        And then undoubtably tell you the wrong thing about how to fix it. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: Steve46814 (talk)

Nominated by: Steve46814 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It isn't that big 1280x960 and it isn't that sharp either, sharpening may help a little. The white point needs adjusting as well. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my talk page:
- As far as the the picture goes: I see your point on the sharpness issue but was afraid more sharpening would cause too much noise in the sky portion of the picture (is here the place to discuss this?). The "White point": I presume that you are referring to the finial on the peak of the roof? If you don't mind, what could/should be adjusted there and why. I am the "creator" of the picture. Steve46814 (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  - It is possible to selectively sharpen the foreground and not the sky. The white point essentially refers to what is defined as the brightest point in the image. That said, i had a look at the histogram and the exposure looks fairly fine as it is. I think that there is probably not enough detail in the shot to pass FPC. You need to have it in an article for it to pass as well. In addition many people would feel that the subject is cut off and would prefer a shot of the entire building. I also think that there is too much contrast which limits the amount of detail. I'd probably try taking it again when it isn't bright, harsh, sunlight. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Selective sharpening I believe would require the use of layers and/or masks, a skill I've yet to master, but I appreciate knowing this photo is lacking here. So the white point is a non issue now that you have examined the histogram? Perhaps the white balance caused some concern? As far as the composition goes, it was the lines of the flat and curved tiles along with the construction of this roof that I saw as interesting. The fact that it was part of a building was not my main focus here. So I'm assuming you are saying that in order for an architectural element of a building to be of photographic interest, that architectural element should only be part of the pictures composition, not the only element comprising that photo. I would love to take a picture (a redo) of that roof/building (bell tower) again, but that will have to wait until I have the opportunity to make a return trip to South Korea - on the other side of the world right now. Thank you for all your feedback and insights.--Steve46814 (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Double-alaskan-rainbow[edit]

Double rainbows are unusual, the human enjoying the rainbows in mid-picture is very funny, well lit picture, and as the caption for this photo in the Rainbow article says, "Supernumerary rainbows can be seen on the inside of the primary arc."

Creator: Eric Rolph (according to the image page)

Nominated by: Tempshill (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I just noticed this was nominated last year for featured picture, at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Double-alaskan-rainbow. There's still a noticeable stitch to the upper left of the red-clothed person. Sorry.
Great image unfortunately, I can actually see two stitching zones, at 1/3 and 2/3 across the image. I also feel that the person in red detracts from the EV and note the shadow of the photographer at the bottom. --Leivick (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Saddam Hussein[edit]

Excellent picture in a good size with no obvious flaws (at least to my eyes)

Creator: U.S. military/Dept. of Defense

Nominated by: Fryslan0109 (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I do like the picture, enough to download and run a minor edit. Though the DOF is small, focus is good around the right eye and nose. In my edit I took out a bit of excess space at the top and side and removed the blurry bit at the bottom right corner (his other hand?). Also did a slight curves adjustment to lift some shadows. What worries me is that other hand, that is not only badly out of focus, but unfortunately sits across his face. It reminds me a bit of the Javier Solana FP ; the hand there wasn't as out of focus as this and also did not obscure his face, but still attracted some opposes based on that. I think it may be worth a try, though suspect if nothing else that hand may do it in. --jjron (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Nominated at FPC (edited version) by Fryslan0109. --jjron (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armadillo Aerospace Pixel hover[edit]

Action shot of a rocket in preparation for competition. I particularly like the optical effects produced by the extreme heat and airflow. The only flaw that I noticed in the photo is the presence of a "rocket anchor" in the foreground. Also I'm having some trouble getting the image to show the same colors when it is viewed at a reduced size.

Creator: Matthew C. Ross, Armadillo Aerospace

Nominated by: Wronkiew (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very cool pic. I'm not too bothered by the rocket anchor -- I take it you meant the suitcase shaped thing on the left? If that's part of the launch equipment it's acceptable to be in the photo. There does however seem to be some jpeg artifacting on it. Is this the absolute highest resolution available? It also seems as though the exhaust gas kicked up a lot of dirt, which creates the appearance of the lens being dirty, even if it's not (e.g., the sky has splotches in it). I think it's a pretty interesting and rare photo; the technical quality isn't perfect but I might like to see it nominated. Anyone else want to comment? Note: I've corrected your caption which linked to armadillo, the animal. Fletcher (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting the caption. I uploaded a new version based on a less compressed original. Also I filtered the dirt out of the sky and fixed the white balance. No higher resolution available. Wronkiew (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the filesize so low? smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original was highly compressed. I uploaded a larger file. Wronkiew (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The very top of it should be cropped because there is nothing but poles there. Shii (tock) 04:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. How much of the poles should be cropped? At least a little sky is needed to show the dimensions of the vehicle. Wronkiew (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree; ideally the poles would not have been cut off in the first place, but if you crop them, they are still going to be cut off somewhere because they go all the way down to the motor, and you'd have the the motor jammed up near the top of the frame. Your clean up looks good, BTW. Fletcher (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, I need some clarification. Are you recommending that I leave the crop as it is, and not try to cut out any of the poles? Wronkiew (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Has been nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Fuji flight formation[edit]

The formation includes aircraft previously flown and also currently flown by the United States Navy. It is like a small sample of Navy aircraft all in the same place, flying side by side, next to the beauty that is Fuji-sama. I know it is not used in articles, but I want to see if this is even worth it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator: U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Jarod Hodge

Nominated by: User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's somewhat noisy and not very sharp, which will hurt its chances. But it is a good example of formation flying and shows the array of planes available to a modern aircraft carrier. You might see how it compares to other pictures of formation flying and naval aviation. Fletcher (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think editing could help it's chances? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find noise or sharpness particularly objectionable, given the size. Thegreenj 00:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo could use some more space in front of and behind the planes. Wronkiew (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly the kind of picture that one can ask for a reshoot. If Thegreenj isn't too bothered by the noise/sharpness then maybe it's worth a go, it's just that they people are very picky on FPC. I agree it's not that bad... maybe some noise reduction would help if it could be done without reducing sharpness to much. It's certainly a rare find which should help. Fletcher (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Thomas S. Monson[edit]

Spectacular picture of an influential religious leader and of an elderly man, in general

Creator: Btibbets

Nominated by: Eustress (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There are certainly good elements to this picture, but I think the simple fact that the gentleman has been scalped would most likely preclude it's chances of becoming a FP. Others may disagree. --jjron (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder