Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Apr-Jun 2010

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

Coast Guard Air Rescue[edit]

I stumbled across this picture while browsing, and I think that this could be a good FP or VP because of its encyclopedic value (its practically irreplaceable), and because I think that it has a bit of a wow factor with the sunset in the background and the spotlight being shown in the mist in addittion to the fact that its not something that you'd see everyday. Thoughts? Best, Mifter (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Aviation Survival Technician, The Guardian (2006 film)

Creator: US CG - Tom Sperduto, PAC , USCG

Suggested by: Mifter (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's certainly a very nice eye-catching picture but I doubt it would succeed at FPC. There is a lot of noise in the shadow areas and probably also jpeg artifacting (I'm not sure if it's just been taken at a very high ISO giving very heavy noise as there's no exif). I'm also not sure that the EV is as high given it's clearly a training exercise, but it may be OK. Any reason it's not in United States Coast Guard? May certainly be a viable nominee at VPC. --jjron (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this has sufficient EV given that it's very difficult to see what's going on in general and the people in particular. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% convinced on the EV, but I don't have a problem seeing whats going on, maybe because I watch a lot of deadliest catch where Coast Guard rescues are featured quite frequently. This is definitely stunning eye candy though, and I hold rescue swimmers in the highest regard, they are truly heroes. I would love to see this featured. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to retract my seconding. This is a truly stunning, beautiful image. Artistically, it could be a bit brighter. And there are other technical shortcomings others have cited, above, that I think would be forgivable. However, as the others have pointed out here, being eye-catching and gorgeous isn’t all that’s required; photos must have encyclopedic value (EV). Sometimes, I wish the FPC community might lighten up sometimes on the heavy emphasis on EV if we think our I.P. readership would likely stop scrolling on the Main Page and click on a picture. That’s what I think would clearly happen if this were to pass FPC. Greg L (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder: ~~Stunning image. Definitely (IMHO) FPC material. I hope to see it there soon. Greg L (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Passchendaele barrage map[edit]

Am not particularly familiar with the Featured/Valued Picture process, but this image is of particular interest because it's an unusual historic illustration of an important, and often misunderstood, military tactic. It also has a wealth of other detail, e.g. thorough depiction of trench lines, that's fascinating in its encyclopedic context. Hence the nomination. Suspect it's probably aiming at VPC rather than FPC.

Articles this image appears in: Barrage (artillery), First Battle of Passchendaele

Creator: Labattblueboy

Suggested by: The Land (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This definitely needs some information about the restoration work done to it. The file pages for any number of restored images can show you what I'm talking about. Check out, for example, File:Yellowstone_1871b.jpg which was restored by Durova, who has been incredibly prolific at restoring historic works. You'll notice she lists the work done to the image, namely "Spots removed, border irregularities corrected, histogram adjusted, and color balanced." I'll comment upon the actual image later, as I'm unable to view it at full-size right now. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should be possible.... The Land (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Magpie-lark and prey[edit]

A rare moment where the image depicts a female Magpie-lark hunting for food in which this moth unfortunately fell victim to and which I believe is a difficult moment to capture as often such birds may not allow you to get close enough to photograph them (this one didn't seem too concerned). If not worthy of FPC or VPC, I'm looking for comments/constructive criticism to further improve on my skills so that I can contribute more high quality, high value images to Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in: Magpie-lark

Creator: DeltaFalcon ^{talk / contribs} 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by: DeltaFalcon ^{talk / contribs} 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice timing, the image seems like it has too much contrast though, and I'd get lower to the ground if possible. There are some pretty high quality magpie lark photographs already in the article, so I'm not sure that your chances of success would be great. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite good, but does seem very saturated. I think there's also an existing FP in the article? Perhaps a little unsharp on the bird - the focus looks like it might have hit just a bit forward as those leaves just in front of the bird seem to be just a bit more in focus. The bokeh in the background is also a bit odd looking and I don't find it particularly attractive, looks almost like an oil-painting or something; you didn't do anything to that in post processing did you? Could be the lens. --jjron (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Superstitions[edit]

Nice composition, lighting, and overall good quality.

Articles this image appears in: Western United States, Superstition Mountains

Creator: Doug Dolde

Suggested by: mono 02:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sorry, while this is a pretty photo it isn't likely to succeed at FPC. It's too small for starters - while it technically just scrapes into the size limits, bigger is generally expected for landscape type shots. Even for it's size, the mountains which are the subject seem to be a bit soft; it looks like focus is further forward, possibly on that large cactus. Also the colours don't look that realistic to me, which could be a consequence of this having been scanned from a slide/film which sometimes bring out colours differently from digital (or it could be aged, but no date is given). --jjron (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above. Firstly the image has a dimension that meets or exceeds 1000 pixels, so it is big enough. Secondly, it is a pretty picture, and one with great quality and detail in both the back and foreground. I will definitely support this if you bring it to suggest it as a FPC! --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with jjron here, I'd oppose on size alone. For a landscape like this, which is generally considered highly reproducible, we expect much higher then minimums. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nice one. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Human embryogenesis[edit]

Highly encyclopedic and illustrative, clearly showing the important stages in the first three weeks of formation of the human embryo. However, it probably needs converting to svg before submitting to FPC, and I don't have a clue how to do that...

Articles this image appears in: Human embryogenesis, Prenatal development + 8 others

Creator: Jrockley

Suggested by: Anxietycello (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You can request the image be converted to .svg over at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. Also, the image needs references. See FPC criterion 6: "Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy." Finally, I think it might flow better if it went back and forth rather than resetting to the beginning of the line, so that 5 would be right below 4. That way it's easier to compare stages. Others might disagree there, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just added references to the image page, and put in a conversion request at the graphics lab. I might try creating an alt image as you described tomorrow. Thanks for the advice! Anxietycello (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest adding an approximate scale to each image too... - Zephyris _Talk 15:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A second little point, from day 12 onwards it is not clear which side of the uterine epithelium the embryo is on... Which is it? - Zephyris _Talk 15:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vector version now available. - Zephyris _Talk 20:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Post-vectorisation I would say this image has a good chance at featured picture status. It has huge EV, is widely used across many major articles and is of a quality comparable to other featured svg diagrams. Furthermore I am able to actively improve it if there are any concerns which need addressing. - Zephyris _Talk 19:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant work! Thankyou very much for taking the time to do this. Only a few small niggling issues - a typo on day six (should read zona instead of zoa); the captions on day 12 and 23 are bold unnecessarily, and on day 23, could you make it clearer that the yolk sac is a single body (it currently appears too tightly pinched at its emergence form the embryo). Also, I know it may not be clear, but I intended the orange colouring to be used only for the 'inner cell mass'; once it splits into the endoderm and ectoderm, the cell mass was to be represented as pink and brown (ie skin and digestive lining), and so there should be no orange cells after day 7. Thankyou again for your excellent work, I'll nominate it for FP now. Anxietycello (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - All those points should be fixed now... - Zephyris _Talk 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC here. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Fountain glass brick towers[edit]

This is a high EV image that I have tried to edit. I have settled on a 6.5 degree rotation, followed by a 300 x-dimension shear and cropping as about the best I can come up with. Further advice needed

Articles this image appears in: Crown Fountain
Glass art
Glass brick
Architectural glass

Creator: www.flickr.com user jjlthree, edited by User:TonyTheTiger

Suggested by: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

No chance at FPC, unlikely at VPC. Composition is just not there. Probably overused in article space. --jjron (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance at direct to video:? Seriously, I will give it a shot at VPC, but want to know what you think of this correction.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 'correction' gives some weird distortions. Possibly most notable at the bottom right-hand corner of the far tower. --jjron (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am using GIMP. Is there a better correction to try in GIMP. Tonight I may experiment with hugin while watching the game.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've never used GIMP, so don't know. But you can't 'fix' everything like that. In essence you're trying to make an image that was taken from a significant angle look like it was taken from front on, and I suspect that can't help but to look weird. --jjron (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If I can figure out hugin, I might try that. Otherwise, we are stuck with what we have.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Victory Monument Chicago alternatives[edit]

Previously used image on WP by TonyTheTiger

Noodle snacks (talk · contribs) edit of TonyTheTiger version

Recreation of the shot currently in use on WP

Recreation of the shot currently also in use on WP

Victory Monument in the Douglas community area of the South Side of Chicago is both a Chicago Landmark and National Register of Historic Places-listed structure.

I am here to see if I can get some advice on cleaning up this work that has high EV. I had taken this shot previously and attempted to get it promoted (see Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Victory Monument and Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Victory Monument). In my prior, attempt an editor made the face of the sculpture more visible with some editing. I was wondering if that is necessary again.

Articles this image appears in: Douglas, Chicago
List of Chicago Landmarks
National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago
Victory Monument (Chicago)
Fountain of the Great Lakes
South Side (Chicago)

Creator: Jovianeye

Suggested by: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I tried, but there isn't any additional recoverable detail here (because the lighting is much harder). During winter the sun would be lower in the sky and you'd get more of it in. In whole the picture isn't too bad, though perhaps more tightly cropped than ideal. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Demetri McCamey signals a play[edit]

Edited versions

Edit 2 - upper right 7% rightward, upper left 4% upward tilt perspective adjustment using GIMP 2.6.8 perspective tool (two adjustments—once with the picture rotated 90 degrees) by TonyTheTiger

Edit 3 - 3 degrees clockwise rotation adjustment using GIMP 2.6.8 by TonyTheTiger

Edit 4 - perspective correction using hugin 2009.4.0 saved as .png by TonyTheTiger

Edit 5 - perspective correction using hugin 2009.4.0 saved as .jpg by TonyTheTiger

This is the finest example that WP has of a point guard signalling a play in basketball. The problem is that the article for point guard is pretty deficient. It is basically a bunch of unreffed WP:OR and does not describe this act of a point guard signaling a play. I am not sure how much responsibility I have for augmenting the article other than by adding the picture and how much it would help the nomination.

Additionally, during the nomination, there was never final agreement on which edit to nominate. On the last day of the nomination new instructions were received on further edits. It is not clear whether one of the supporting voters even was aware of the change by the time of the close of the nomination. The editor who gave the instruction to make further edits never acknowledged if the final edit was actually what he was asking for. Thus, I am here to get an understanding on how best to edit this image and re-nominate it. I would like advice on both editing the article and commentary on the point guard article an how much it should say about signaling to bring out the EV in this photo.

Articles this image appears in: Point guard
Assist (basketball)
2009–10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team
Demetri McCamey
St. Joseph High School (Westchester, Illinois)
2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season

Creator: Joshua Beckman (flickr user PhotoVandal)

Suggested by: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Demetri McCamey signals a play its final status was as follows:

Nauticashades (talk · contribs) switched support from edit 2 to edit 3 on final day.

Spencer (talk · contribs) supported edit 2, but did not acknowledge the creation of and consideration of edit 3 (no WP edits between final edit posting and close of nomination)

Jjron (talk · contribs) infrequent editor who seemed to still be giving instructions for further editing and did not acknowledge creation of and consideration of edit 3 (no WP edits between final instruction and closing of nomination)

Diliff (talk · contribs) commented on need for correction and never supported any edits but did not acknowledge creation of and consideration of edit 3 (one WP edit between final edit posting and close of nomination)

I just want to make sure edit 3 is the best I can get and everyone gets a chance to consider it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Tony, I've been busy so unfortunately I didn't get a chance to respond properly. My only involvement in this nom, as you said, was to comment on the tilt. I didn't feel strongly enough about the image enough to place my vote. I think either Edit 2 or 3 are fine technically. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you tell me whether the point guard article would seem to be a much higher EV usage if it described point guard signaling of plays.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't worry about that. Just make sure you explain what he's doing in the caption, and how it relates to the role of Point Guard. NauticaShad es 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - IMO Edit 3 is clearly the best. Edit 2, having had 'perspective correction' has stretched the background including crowd members, and even slightly stretched the upper parts of the player, distorting him, and yet still left the bottom of the image tilted. Edit 3 being a simple tilt correction has straightened the image appropriately (a quick check looked quite straight). I notice filesize is considerably lower than the other edits, and assume quality hasn't been downgraded (again in my quick check it didn't appear any worse and should be OK). In terms of EV I really think it needs to be judged in terms of the Demetri McCamey article. It's too broadly spread across other articles to make a balanced decision, and if you wanted to focus it as an illustration of the point guard article I don't think it has sufficient EV (too easily replaceable by more high profile player, etc). Would therefore be good to use it more prominently in his article, probably swapping it with that awkward looking photo in the taxobox (and I don't really know why all the images have dates in the captions). In terms of voting I was a bit in the Diliff camp, where I probably didn't feel strongly enough about it, but was also mindful that it needed those fixes, and had some other technical questions. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Tackle box[edit]

**Original** - Tackle box with rod and bait bucket

Well framed photo showing fishing tackle on a wooden pier. All elements needed to fish including the location are displayed in the image with proper exposure.

Articles this image appears in: Fishing tackle

Creator: 350z33

Suggested by: 350z33 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd say this would have little to no chance at FPC, and probably little chance at VPC, sorry. Looks to be quite lacking in sharpness at full res, perhaps focus was a bit above the box (not sure, but the rod seems a bit sharper, as does that post (?) in the top middle of image), and, at a guess, taken with the kit lens? There's also a bit of excessive noise perhaps, especially in the water. Probably the biggest issues are composition - this top down view feels a bit awkward, the fishing rod is badly cutoff at both ends, and the fishing box itself is a bit of a mess, with that tangle of line and all the junk in the bottom of the box, including the open drink can. On the other hand, people do support some unlikely candidates, as can be seen on the FPC page currently. Thanks for the nom. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Antwerp Central Station[edit]

Good composition, useful for illustrating this level in the article. It's not colored, though--is this a big issue in anyone's opinion? Seems educational still to me.

Articles this image appears in: Antwerp Central Station

Creator: Laurent-Jonathan Meyvaert

Suggested by: —fetch ·comms 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This shot seems to artsy too pass at FPC. Usually b/w pictures pass only if they're historic. The EV here doesn't seem great enough either: it shows only a very small portion of the subject and really not enough to be representative. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Too artsy?" They eat "artsy" up in FPC, especially if, like in this image, there's good detail, resolution and quality. For those reasons I would be inclined to vote in support of this image for FP, but others will have a problem, as Makeemlighter says, about its EV, and I somewhat agree. This is the cropped top of a structure, it'd be nicer to see the whole thing. I also get the b/w, I was assuming it was a cloudy day I guess, not intentionally made like that. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Rhode Island Counties Timeline[edit]

**Original** - Animated timeline of the evolution of Rhode Island

It's been a while since I've done an animated timeline, and I wanted to work on improving one that was already in an FLC. Better colors, far more facts. I'm planning a list article with each step, but til then I wanted to throw out the GIF and see what y'all think. --Golbez (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: List of counties in Rhode Island

Creator: Golbez

Suggested by: Golbez (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You have 18 different slides and the ability to pause and control of how fast they go by would be nice.
- Not possible without Flash, and I can't provide that. --Golbez (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Lake Sampaloc[edit]

Original - The view of Lake Sampaloc in San Pablo City, Laguna from the Lake Sampaloc view deck. It is the largest and most developed lake in San Pablo's Seven Lakes wherein fishing and recreational activities take place.

The photo has clearly shown the lake's size wherein based on the article, it is the largest of the Seven Lakes of San Pablo City, Laguna. It also shows the mountain of its origin - Mount Banahaw.

Articles this image appears in: Lake Sampaloc

Creator: Barrera_marquez

Suggested by: Barrera marquez 14:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Lots of compression artifacts. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Quality is an issue - it's been overly compressed. Maybe trying uploading a higher quality version for starters. --jjron (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Herbert Spencer[edit]

I think this is a representative, good quality photo of Herbert Spencer, and I think it is the best we have (see commons:Category:Herbert Spencer). I am wondering if it would qualify for Valued or preferably Featured Picture? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Herbert Spencer, Social Darwinism, Sociocultural evolution, Sideburns

Creator: unknown (according to official source credit at the Smithsonian Institution Libraries)

Suggested by: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Would it be possible to request a higher resolution version? The dimensions are adequate, but compression artifacts become a problem at full resolution. Durova⁴¹² 21:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other alt version I can find is [1] - I don't think it is much better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

GCNP symmetry[edit]

The photo is of high resolution, has improved contrast, and depicts compositional symmetrical balance.

Articles this image appears in: Grand Canyon National Park

Creator: serioushat

Suggested by: serioushat 02:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

IMO unlikely to pass at FPC sorry. Seems to be lacking sharpness at full res, probably a consequence of the camera. I'd also suggest there's a little too much sky and the foreground feels a bit cutoff. To me it also seems a little dark with no real 'punch' to the colours; comparing to many other photos of the Grand Canyon, the colours seem to come up more spectacular in them - you say above it is taken at noon, which is not normally an ideal time to get the best colours at a place like this. Image page is lacking information. Thanks for nominating here. --jjron (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pink Clouds Over Mumbai[edit]

This is a very beautiful picture and also adds significantly to the article 'Clouds'. The person after seeing this picture comes to know the nature of clouds during sunset.

Articles this image appears in: Cloud

Creator: Bm1996

Suggested by: Bm1996 (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This does not appear in any articles so would not be eligible at FPC or VPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does appear in the article Cloud. Mb1996 17:28, 25 April 2010 (IST)
- Orly? I don't see it anywhere in that article. And the file links on the image page don't show it as being used in any articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ughh...sorry someone re-edited it with another picture. My fault, didn't see it :). I'll try to post it in another article soon! Mb1996 17:28, 25 April 2010 (IST)

Seconder

Karluk voyage map[edit]

The map was a modest but useful addition to an article that is now featured. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I did not write the article, that User:NormanEinstein created the base map with the inset map, and that I have never before nominated a map or photo here for comment. (Newbie alert!) I'm guessing that "landscape" is the right formatting choice, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance for any input.

Articles this image appears in: Voyage of the Karluk

Creator: User:Finetooth

Suggested by: Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Kunyu Wanguo Quantu[edit]

Very detailed map with excellent scanning quality; high resolution and well digitally preserved/restored; of considerable encyclopedic value and significance. Is already a featured image on the Spanish and Turkish Wikipedias, and I don't mean to be jumping the bandwagon or anything, but there is probably a pretty good reason why it is featured on those projects.

Articles this image appears in: Kunyu Wanguo Quantu, Terra Australis

Creator: Original by Matteo Ricci; uploaded by commons:User:PhiLiP

Suggested by: -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Reasonably good change in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Neely Nuclear Reactor[edit]

Impressive resolution, equally interesting subject (a nuclear reactor)

Articles this image appears in: History of Georgia Tech, Georgia Tech Research Institute, James E. Boyd (scientist), Neely Nuclear Research Center

Creator: Georgia Tech Research Institute (This organization has released it under a free license.)

Suggested by: —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could use some touch-up. It's got specks of dust here and there. I would most likely support given restoration. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Meteorite crater at Lonar[edit]

This is a good picture of the meteorite crater at Lonar shot with a wide angle and it clearly shows the crater as well as the vegetation surrounding it.

Articles this image appears in: Lonar

Creator: ganeshrg

Suggested by: Ganeshrg (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting picture, but there are problems with technical quality and encyclopedic value. The two main problems with this picture are that it doesn't show the entire subject, and that it seems underexposed. If you shot in RAW, you might be able to solve this second problem by increasing the exposure compensation. I'm afraid fixing the first problem would require you to stitch a multi-shot panorama to achieve the wider field of view. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are talking about. The original picture was actually exposed slightly more but the sky was too bright which is why I edited the picture to underexpose it. Could you help me get the right exposure level for this? I have submitted this picture in Wikipedia Graphic Lab but I haven't seen any responses yet. Ganeshrg (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Balsamorhiza deltoidea[edit]

I feel the picture meets the featured picture criteria and is a useful depiction for the article Balsamorhiza deltoidea, however I have one tiny concern. At the time of taking the picture, the reduced depth of field was an intentional effect to convey the depth in the picture. I am worried that this may hold back the picture at WP:FPC, and would like a second opinion on that matter.

Articles this image appears in: ~~Balsamorhiza deltoidea~~ Balsamorhiza sagittata

Creator: Shirik

Suggested by: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's nice, I think. --Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Artistically I love it. Depth of field is a little shallow however. At the very least is definitely VP quality. I would support for FPC. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say those other overlapping yellow flowers right behind would create issues. DOF seems too narrow for me, but then again that train just got promoted, so who can say. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Hong Kong skyline[edit]

Daytime skyline of a city, with a large body of water in front

Original - Hong Kong

Very nice picture and displays the beauty and has a good quality

Articles this image appears in: Hong Kong

Creator: Shizhao

Suggested by: Extra999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 10:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's been nominated for FPC twice before and failed. There are too many stitching faults in it IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]