Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Oct-Dec 2009

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

Warm Springs Indians[edit]

A representative photo featuring Native American craft, but needs some restoration, particularly the woman's head to the left. Brand[t] 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs

Creator

Suggested by: Brand[t] 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

High EV for sure. However, the deterioration is pretty bad, especially over the face of the woman on the left. Beyond my skill level of restoration. Maybe inquire with Durova. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I contacted Durova, but she did not reply. Probably will look forward. Brandmeister[t] 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess you missed it: she replied. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep:) However I noticed that she works with uncompressed TIFFs or PNGs, so this is not the case currently... Brandmeister[t] 20:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Needs restored for FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seaweed farming in Indonesia[edit]

Good photograph

Articles this image appears in: Seaweed

Creator: Jean-Marie Hullot also on en wiki Jmhullot (talk)
Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd like to see some information in the caption about what specifically is being shown here. You could add it to Edible seaweed. The image quality is good enough. A little fill flash would have helped lighten the guy's face. I think a highlight reduction has been performed on the sky but the haloing is only minor. I'd say it has a good shot. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some details in the commons image description gleaned from the wiki article. It looks like she is picking seaweed shoots and collecting them in a basket floating on an inner-tube. Do you think is is reasonable to add this? I have also amended the caption. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Nominated at FPC. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall near Mallwyd, Gwynedd.[edit]

It is simply a beautiful picutre that stands out on the Wales article and helps to both draw a person's attention and gives a good view of the Welsh country.

Articles this image appears in: Wales, Mallwyd

Creator: Tivedshambo|

Suggested by: Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for your suggestion. While this is of value to the article, it would not succeed at FPC. The quality is just not high enough. In particular the blown highlights are far too significant, especially in the sky, but also I believe in the water. This type of photo, even when high quality, tends to struggle a bit anyway as the falls themself do not appear that outstanding and there's no other clear landmarks, and thus they are commonly met with a response such as 'could be taken anywhere', a comment on the generic nature of the image, not a question of it actually being of where it claims. --jjron (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Round Table meeting-1989[edit]

important part of Eastern Bloc history and great composition.

Articles this image appears in: History of Poland, Lech Wałęsa, History of Poland (1989–present), People's Republic of Poland, Polish Round Table Agreement, Round table (furniture), History of Poland (1945–1989), History of Solidarity,

Creator: BaomoVW

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 03:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

There appear to be undocumented changes between this and the original. They will need to be documented before any nomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

First World War maps[edit]

I was surprised not to find a single WWI trench map amongst the FPs. There are a number in the commons that have had no restoration work done to them but are high resolution uploads. File:Battle of Messines - plannig map.jpg, File:Battle of the Canal du Nord - 1st Canadian Division planning map.jpeg, File:Battle of the Canal du Nord - battle map (Sept 1918).jpg, File:Battle of Hill 70 - local planning map.jpg, File:First Battle of Passchendaele - barrage map.jpg are a number of examples of higher resolution files for more notable battles. Seeking suggestions on which is a most appropriate as an FPC.

Articles this image appears in: Battle of Mount Sorrel

Creator: n.d.

Suggested by: Labattblueboy (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure I can offer a huge amount of input, but geocoding the image would add value in my opinion. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. done--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Bentley BR2[edit]

**Original** - Data plate of a preserved Bentley BR2 aero engine

A close-up of a 1917 aircraft engine data plate taken recently at a museum by myself. Would be interested on thoughts on this image, I tried to capture the essence of it.

Articles this image appears in: Bentley BR2

Creator: Nimbus227

Suggested by: Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I love these old rotaries! I think it's a very attractive picture, the main technical problem being flash glare. I know shooting pieces in a dimly lit museum, often behind glass, is no easy thing. I suspect the best approach is to use a lens with a fast aperture, or one with good stabilization to allow you to get sharp pictures without the flash. As far as encyclopedic value, I think this image would struggle if nominated because people would want to see a wider view of the whole engine. Or, sometimes you can choose to focus on a single element of the engine, the crankshaft, pushrods, etc. The data plate is good to shoot for informational purposes, but is less interesting by itself, in my opinion. Hope that helps.Fletcher (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really have EV (encyclopaedic value) because we can't see the engine. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks, glad I came here first!! I have a fair collection of engine photos, very difficult to get the shot you want in museums sometimes. Gives me some pointers though, will have a look at some others. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The best images will have the whole engine in the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Aloe dichotoma in Namibia[edit]

good image

Articles this image appears in: Aloe dichotoma

Creator: Le Grand Portage

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'd support it, but you should do a noise reduction on the background. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I've attempted a NR on the sky...Edit1. Agreeing with above, the main thing I didn't like was noise in the sky. Otherwise should be worth a nom. Fletcher (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Modified version nominated for FP. Snowman (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the noise reduction to only the sky, or did the software modify all of the image? Snowman (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did several selective blurs to different regions of the sky. Should have left the tree alone (it was only the sky that bothered me). Fletcher (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated at FPC. --jjron (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silhouetted Troops Marching[edit]

Ernest Brooks was one of the leading photographers of the First World War. Unlike many of the First World War photos this one is a high resolution scan and also happens to be one of Brooks' more famous images. The silhouetted contrast with the light shinning through the clouds is different from most war photography.

Articles this image appears in: Battle of Passchendaele, Battle of Broodseinde and Ernest Brooks (photographer)

Creator: Ernest Brooks

Suggested by: Labattblueboy (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lovely shot, poor reproduction. A great pity, as the print looks to have been a good one, just not very well archived; it was reasonably well scanned, but compressed way too much. Repairing the dust and damage would be a real chore as it's hard to tell damage from jpeg artifact. An uncompressed version at this size might have been a potential candidate. Which brings me to the copyright situation: are we sure this is PD by virtue of being owned by the British government? mikaul^talk 08:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an uncompressed image will be available short of ordering a digital print from the IWM or NLS. The image will certainly be PD. The photo was under crown copyright as it was created while Brooks' was employed as the British official war photographer. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, dim of me not to see the crown copyright. FWIW the image probably has enough value in its current state to nominate at WP:VP but the compression artifacts are certainly enough to scupper an FP candidacy. Looking at the source site, they're enough to ruin a detailed viewing there, too. I really don't understand the point of it in that context. mikaul^talk 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may consider getting a IWM to do a scan of the negative. If I do, I'll be back. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scan this jpeg was made from would do, probably still on file so a nicely-worded email might do the trick. If you get it, let me know and I'll fix it up ready for FPC for you. mikaul^talk 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Loggerhead Shrike in Texas[edit]

Good photograph

Articles this image appears in: Loggerhead Shrike

Creator: Terry Ross

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Striking as a thumbnail, with a great perch and nice neutral background and lighting, this is much less rewarding at full size. I guess it's been heavily cropped from the full 10MP frame and possibly underexposed/corrected, making for a noisy sky and grainy-looking dark areas. A real pity, as one of these issues could be partially fixed well-enough for FPC, but not both. mikaul^talk 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think I could fix the background, if that is what you mean.~~ Snowman (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it looks unfixable to FPC standards; you could fix the background but on the bird you'd still have a grain/detail payoff to deal with that doesn't look fixable to me. mikaul^talk 21:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC) <edit> Sorry, I should add this would probably pass at WP:VPICS as it is. mikaul^talk 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is it more difficult to fix than I first thought. Thank you for your comments. Incidentally, what software would fix the graininess in the sky? Snowman (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a number of dedicated noise reduction programs – noise ninja or similar – but you'd only get good results by also using layers and masks in something like Photoshop, to selectively sharpen and soften the relevant parts. Personally, for an image like this, I think it's an affectation to go to such lengths. In print, there'd not be any grain... as it's way too small a file to make a print big enough to see it. As I say, it should pass at Valued Pictures as-is, maybe just a tiny crop from the left. mikaul^talk 08:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think square images are the best shape for showing in gallerys, so I think I will leave it as a square. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crops don't bother me, agree that it looks like a tight crop. I don't think it would pass (FPC) on quality grounds. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for comments. I overestimated the possibilities to repair it to FP level. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close enough to get a featured shot of a wild bird reliably is quite difficult without very expensive equipment unfortunately. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Dreamcast[edit]

**Original** - The Dreamcast, Sega's last home console

Nice Resolution

Articles this image appears in: Sega, Dreamcast, History of video game consoles (sixth generation)

Creator: Asim18

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice, crisp, and good composition. Exceptional lighting and no non-free logos visible on the game. I'd say give it a go. Zoo Fari 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, except for the Dreamcast logo itself, right. I'm pretty sure that got copyrighted. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 06:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamcast logo does not meet the threshold for copyright. Zoo Fari 06:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, wow... guess I got pwned there... Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 15:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when? It's a specific, stylized spiral, not just a simple geometric design. I think it could definitely be argued to be under copyright. And FWIW, we've got the logo under fair-use. Thegreenj 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Zoo Fari 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

However, one of the featured pictures contains a fair use logo on it too.

Icelandic horse[edit]

This is a gorgeous action shot of an Icelandic in a show ring. I've never nominated a picture for FP, so I would like to know if this image would have any chance?

Articles this image appears in: Icelandic horse

Creator: Taken by Dagur Brynjólfsson, uploaded by Pitke from Flikr

Suggested by: Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Probably problems with motion blur/softness and small size.
(edit conflict) Nice image. There are some flaws that might prevent successful nomination though. The horse is soft (not sharpened) and suffers blown highlights (overexposed areas) and it kind of seems like the face is out of focus. Zoo Fari 00:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice but I don't think it's nice enough for Featured... I sharpened it a bit so it might do for Valued, but I really have no idea of what they require. Pitke (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

U2 Missile Image from Cuban Missile Crisis[edit]

One of the most important images in recent history. Despite small size, its irreplaceable, and critically important.

Articles this image appears in: Cuban Missile Crisis

Creator: The CIA

Suggested by: Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 18:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unlikely to succeed due to the small size and limited EV. Zoo Fa ri 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explain "limited EV" please. This photo almost got the earth crisped Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 05:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small file size is kind of excusable, as despite the very large-format cameras used, it would have been taken from 60,000 feet or more and would have resolved only very slightly better detail than this on film. Considering the image placement at the moment and the fact that it isn't an iconic image in its own right, I'd say the "limited EV" comment was fair judgement. If it was the defining image of the crisis, it would be the lead image in the article. Placing it at Lockheed U2 or reconnaisance or other places where it also has relevance would increase EV, but not perhaps to FPC required levels. This is because it's not unique; another image of the same place (and better annotated) is already at the latter article and is not only more informative, it's clearly presented as the defining image of the U2 reconnaissance missions over Cuba. Interesting though, viz. my first point, that the higher resolution there doesn't yield any more information than your nomination here. mikaul^talk 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with ZooFari commentary about EV (which means Exposure Value (jggifys)) because this is an example of state of the art reconnaissance photography from the early 60's. The EV doesn't represent poor composition from the photography. Also disagree with MIckStephenson comment about the other image being of the same place, as it's not clear that it is. What this photo lacks is a source citation. Not sure where it's from, what day it was taken, which target it refers to, etc. Assertions that this is one of the most important images in recent history are unsupported by reference information. Jeffme (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Kazakhstani Republican Guard[edit]

Don't know how I found my way to this, but when I saw it, I said "wow, this is a great image." Large, so can be downsampled into a crisp image, also likely few replacements that are free.

Articles this image appears in: Kazakhstan Military of Kazakhstan Republican Guard (Kazakhstan)

Creator: Jim Varhegyi, U.S. Air Force

Suggested by: Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Interesting photo-- cropped a bit tight on the left and top, but interesting. Could be useful in illustrating other articles, such as Military parade, or [[At attention]. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the tight crop and large amounts of JPEG artifacts, it's not likely to succeed FPC. You could try VPC, but you might want to try adding it to another article as suggested above. Zoo Fari 23:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: View of line up with perspective that takes some concentration to figure out. Snowman (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church[edit]

Good lighting and detail.

Articles this image appears in: Sveti Sedmochislenitsi Church, potentially more

Creator: TodorBozhinov

Suggested by: Todor →Bozhinov 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nicely squared-up, could do with a small crop from the right to center it properly, detail is ok but lighting is a problem. A bit earlier in the day would likely have seen the sun a little more on the front; as it is you only get a hint of the colour and detail that could have been. Check out the existing architecture FPs and you'll see good, even lighting is a very important requirement. mikaul^talk 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lighing could be better. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

National Assembly of Bulgaria[edit]

Useful encyclopedic shot, can't really see much wrong with it. There's some decent detail and, behold, no cars in the foreground (which is hard to capture in daylight even on a Sunday afternoon).

Is the guy to the right distracting? I think he adds a kind of scale to the photo.
Also, I'd like to know whether the shadow cast over the building is an issue.
A frontal shot without the domes of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral seen in the background is not possible, if that can be perceived as a problem.

Articles this image appears in: Politics of Bulgaria, National Assembly of Bulgaria, Tsar Osvoboditel Boulevard, Konstantin Jovanović, potentially a lot more

Creator: TodorBozhinov

Suggested by: Todor →Bozhinov 21:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Answering your questions in turn: the guy isn't a problem, generally one or two people can be beneficial as you say; the shadow is a big problem, see comment on previous nomination; although you may find reviewers forgiving about background buildings etc they're never a plus point, and unless your image is exceptional in other respects that sort of minor issue can tip the balance away from FP promotion. There's some distortion making the building appear curved, which I'd suggest was the most important issue after lighting. mikaul^talk 22:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fo me the shadow on building and dark foreground spoils photograph. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Golden Trout in hand[edit]

**Original** - A golden trout, California's state fish, caught in the John Muir Wilderness.

High resolution and great brightness.

Articles this image appears in: Golden trout, Golden Trout Wilderness, Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery

Creator: Rayfound

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Nice pic but I'm not sure about it, not only being a juvenile but being held like that, reminds me more of an angling magazine shot than an encyclopedia illustration. That would be the killer issue at FPC, although you'd also probably find the higher resolution only serves to show up a slight lack of definition common to compact cameras, and find it marked down for being a bit soft. That it's a nice-looking fish, generally, isn't enough. mikaul^talk 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Mating Snails[edit]

This is an incredibly amazing photo. Not only would it be hard to capture, but it is such good quality and shows so much detail. It also illustrates how these particular snails get down and dirty ahah, which adds greatly to the article. (This is my first picture one btw, so might not have done it all correctly).

Articles this image appears in: Helix pomatia, Love dart

Creator: the creator of the image, where possible using the format Gugganij

Suggested by: IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wonderful detail, questionable EV. Also, I fixed it, but new submissions go up top. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it has a good shot, but I would dispute the hard to capture part - snails are about as easy as it gets. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of only two images in the article, I'd say it had decent EV. Image quality is ok althogh composition could be improved with a crop from the right and more space (if available) at the bottom. mikaul^talk 22:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

St James Independent School, Twickenham, London[edit]

good photograph, high resolution.

Articles this image appears in: St James Independent Schools

Creator: Jim Linwood

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Very blurry/noisy, either by downsampling gone wrong or a very shaky hand. Look at the rightmost quarter of the image for the best example of this.Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean on the full size image. The noise is not so apparent at 50% size, which is still big enough for FPC. Snowman (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have a shot. The noise and blown highlights are the main issues that I can see, otherwise fairly detailed etc. You could try a noise reduction on those areas. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its rectangular shape could indicate that the image has been cropped. I have not got the right tools to fix the noise or I do not know how to operate GIMP well enough. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

F-16 Fighting Falcon video[edit]

A brief presentation of the subject and a valuable video footage, encyclopedic. Is submited here per videos = motion pictures.

Articles this image appears in: F-16 Fighting Falcon, Fighter aircraft

Creator: U.S. Air Force

Suggested by: Kozuch (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Blatant ad for the F16, will fail nom on NPOV grounds. Also, quality sucks... Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 06:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, plain and simple. Terrible quality.--iBen^discuss 19:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Australian Pelican swimming[edit]

well lit, looks natural

Articles this image appears in: Australian Pelican

Creator: Geoff Penaluna

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think you'd have trouble because of the badly blown highlights. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. Snowman (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Self portrait of William-Adolphe Bouguereau[edit]

Needs a bit of cleanup, but has good EV as there are no better portraits of him, and no photos for obvious reasons. Another portrait is at (File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Self-Portrait Presented To M. Sage (1886).jpg), but is not as good IMO

Articles this image appears in: William-Adolphe Bouguereau

Creator: William-Adolphe Bouguereau

Suggested by: Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Could you clarify where the painting is kept. Snowman (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Buteo magnirostris[edit]

a detailed photograpah

Articles this image appears in: en:Roadside Hawk

Creator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wagner-machado-carlos-lemes/

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sharp and well-lit. If the species identification is accurate, I'd suggest nominating this one at FPC. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have nominated it at FPC. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Dolichotis patagonum[edit]

good photograph

Articles this image appears in: en:Patagonian Mara

Creator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrargerich/

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Bottlenose Dolphin[edit]

good photograph

Articles this image appears in: en:Bottlenose dolphin

Creator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/85936780@N00

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Low placement in one article, not really liking the composition, probably wouldn't pass FPC. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Glossopsitta concinna[edit]

shows plumage well

Articles this image appears in: en:Musk Lorikeet

Creator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiwiclanger/

Suggested by: Snowman (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image is of poor quality. While it captures the subject well, it is incredibly grainy. Beyond what could be done with an unsteady hand, this seems like it was digitally altered for some reason to add "noise" to the image. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sustainable Portable Classroom[edit]

creative architectural design, lack of such featured media type (?)

Articles this image appears in: Sustainable architecture

Creator: Drexel University Design Charrette

Suggested by: Kozuch (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment. This is a poster that combines big blocks of text with many discrete images. For this reason, I'd question whether the articles in which this image appears would be improved by breaking up this poster into its constituent images and using only some of them, rather than the whole poster. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My perdiction: This will be rejected by the people at FPC for having lots of blocks of very small text that is hot pink (and not web safe SVG font.) Actually, they probably will also want this to be an SVG period, which I doubt you can or are willing to do. Also, Spike has a point. Right now this is one giant advert, but broken down, it can be more useful. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The Sign[edit]

I would like other editors to do a peer review on this. Currently I am nominating the article for good article. It would be nice to have the photo featured someday. Can you offer suggestions on how to improve the image if it doesn't meet the criteria? To me, it is fine and shows the school sign well. I hope you won't criticize this photo harshly. It would be such a hassle to improve on it when it looks fine already.

Articles this image appears in: William A. Shine Great Neck South High School

Creator: Alchaenist

Suggested by: Zeleb (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image will likely not pass FPC nomination. Reasons: lighting too bright, subject has little to no encyclopedic value (...its a sign in some bushes), and misc. technical issues. Due to the EV concern, I doubt a retake would help. Sorry, Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

William A. Shine Great Neck South High School[edit]

I would like other editors to do a peer review on this. Currently I am nominating the article for good article. It would be nice to have the photo featured someday. Can you offer suggestions on how to improve the image if it doesn't meet the criteria? To me, it is fine and shows the school well. I hope you won't criticize this photo harshly. It would be such a hassle to improve on it when it looks fine already.

Articles this image appears in: William A. Shine Great Neck South High School

Creator: Alchaenist

Suggested by: Zeleb (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Another image that I am not sure has the potential to pass FPC. It has no WOW factor, some technical problems, etc. Really, not every article needs FPs, even good ones, and forcing an FP on an article might hurt it. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Westminster at Night[edit]

**Original** - The Westminster complex, at night

Already is an FP, but I think it would be better if someone rotated it a bit so that the palace would run parallel to the edge of the image. Don't know where else to put this. If it does not get fixed, I will nominate this for delisting, as this is a photo of acommon subject, poorly executed. Also, there is no link to the promotion discussion.

Articles this image appears in: Several, but that is not the point...

Creator: Solipsist

Suggested by: Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Have repaired the link to the FPC nom (it got lost somewhere back in the edits when something else got removed). Re the fixes I'm not sure what you're saying - are you suggesting the bottom of the building should be parallel to the bottom of the image? If so, I don't think that can be 'fixed' very effectively, as that is due to the image being taken on an angle from beside that bridge. --jjron (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What make this image poorly executed? When these guys that know about photography complain about having a tilted horizon is usually in frontal pictures, in which the inclination is really misleading of the real position of the subject, or in cases in which it produces some problems with the shape of the objects ( which in general doesn't have to be a problem but the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia requires). At the beginning I saw a problem with that thing visible in the river. I thought it was a dog swimming but I thing it is a rock. In any case that can be cropped if you really want. Franklin.vp 17:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do this experiment. Look and the bridge. There some rectangular holes underneath facing the photographer. You will see that the sides of those rectangles are perfectly parallel to those of the frame. So the tilt that you are seen is indeed perspective. It is actually a very good picture. Franklin.vp 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The building is photographed obliquely, so the far end looks smaller than the near end and I think everyone will understand this. I do not think that the photograph should be changed except to straighten some of the verticals. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Ft. Pickens, FL. (cleanup wanted)[edit]

**Original** - Fort Pickens, Florida, during a storm. Illustration

With a little bit of cleanup, this would make an excellent FP. Good EV, irreplacable, meets size requirements, quality scan, no copyvio issues. Plus, Florida is lacking in FPs.

Articles this image appears in: Fort Pickens, Battle of Santa Rosa Island, Portal:Florida/Selected picture/13, 1861

Creator: Mrs. ??? Gilman. Printed in Harper's Weekly

Suggested by: Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm no expert on these, but looks to be a lot of banding across the image. I think it would be hard to fix to an acceptable standard, and it's a pretty small file/res to be working on. --jjron (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/File:Dresden Garnisonkirche gp.jpg

Peel Castle at night[edit]

I believe this may meet the FP criteria as it is encylopedic, well composed and visually pleasing. The image is sharp, despite the long exposure, apart from the reflection which gives a deliberately ghostly appearnce due to the movemnent of ripples on the water during the exposure. My only concern is the possible overexposure from the lights, which is why I'd like a second opinion here before I nominate it at FP.

Articles this image appears in: Peel Castle

Creator: Tivedshambo

Suggested by: — Tivedshambo (t/c) 14:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It won't pass FP IMO. Honestly, it's too poorly placed and only is on one artice. That means that it will be that much more likely to be picked apart for the lighting. Do you have a daytime photo from the same spot? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not as detailed as you'd expect from a 14MP camera, at first I thought it was a compact... you'd get much better results at a wider aperture (ƒ8 should be fine) and with more light (twilight would work well, see the images at blue hour) you'd have less noise and better definition. You should still get some blurry water at ~1sec and it's a good candidate for stitching. It's encyclopedic enough as it is, but with a bit of work it could easily be the lead image in the article. One further thought: FP reviewers can be picky about not including the whole structure, ie you've cropped the left side here. Good luck if you decide to re-shoot. mikaul^talk 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Mona Lisa (third nomination)[edit]

The first and second nominations have left this version as the last one that hasn't been declined as featured picture in English Wikipedia among the currently available Mona Lisa versions.

Articles this image appears in: (most of them link to Mona Lisa.jpg - first 500 articles are found at [1])

Creator: Leonardo da Vinci

Suggested by: Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

A real snowball, I'm afraid, considering the much better second nomination failed. In comparison, this one has lower resolution, poor colour balance, some very strange damage and coloration to the top and doesn't appear in any articles. --mikaul^talk 10:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: doesn't appear in the Mona Lisa article... --mikaul^talk 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~This might be because this version of the Mona Lisa is terrible. If there already are Mona Lisa FPs, this isn't going to get restored either. Sorry. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
'Okay, misunderstood that. This version has major issues and will likely not be able to be fixed to FP quality. How is it that there isn't an FP Mona Lisa? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same reason this one doesn't cut it: reproduction (scanning) doesn't do justice to the original. Frustrating, but this is what keeps most famous artworks off the front page, largely due to proprietorial concerns. If you could get a free, quality high-res scan from Commons, no-one would buy the poster from the gallery/museum gift shop... mikaul^talk 19:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Makaira nigricans meat[edit]

This is a fish that is renowned throughout the world and one that is popular enough to find its way into many grocery stores/fish markets. The picture itself meets the size requirement by double the recommended size and nicely illustrates the subject.

Articles this image appears in: Atlantic blue marlin

Creator: ZeWrestler

Suggested by: ZeWrestler ^Talk 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

My guess is that the direct flash lighting and perhaps the paper might let you down. General image sharpness is fairly low as well. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Noodlesnacks. Still-lifes of food are all about lighting. Check here for examples of what featured pictures of food look like. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Veenoord Nooitgedacht vanaf overzijde kanaal.jpg[edit]

Good clear image, the spread sailcloths suggest that the mill is working. Well contrasted against the sky and reflected in the canal.

Articles this image appears in: Nooitgedacht, Veenoord

Creator: Quistnix

Suggested by: Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Won't pass FP, looks like this windmill is in the middle of an industrial park? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about FP, also IMO the reflection is unnecessary. Pretty, but unnecessary. Nezzadar ☎ 05:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Python swallowing a deer[edit]

This is a graphic, shocking, unique and impressive image that is the best and only example of Predation by a Python in Wikipedia. See the deer's hoof for scale. It has good technical standard and resolution with no manipulation (990 × 695 pixels, file size: 907 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg), accurate and succinct caption and a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license. It adds value and understanding to each article it illustrates.

Articles this image appears in: Mudumalai National Park, Predation, Python molurus

Creator: Rakesh Kumar Dogra IFS-CF
Suggested by: Marcus334 (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think it'd pass on the basis of borderline resolution and image quality. Also there is a lot of stuff in the way and we can't see most of the python or the deer. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a chance capture of Python swallowing a full grown spotted deer in the forests of Mudumalai. The entire act took about three hours. Surprisingly, contrary to popular belief, the python moved away quietly soon after entire deer was inside. . Marcus334 (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Isothermal Chart[edit]

Adds considerable value to the associated articles, fairly high resolution.

Articles this image appears in: Timeline of meteorology, Alexander von Humboldt

Creator: Jujutacular (restoration)

Suggested by: Jujutacular ^T · C 12:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

By all means, submit, submit, submit, it's excellent. You might want to explain the "act of congress" mentioned at the bottom in fine print though. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the "act of congress" is. I would have to guess that it was entered into the Library of Congress, but I can't be sure. Thanks for the encouragement. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria amazonica[edit]

I'm pretty happy with it technically, as composition, exposure and focus all seemed ok, and it shows the flower during it's "white" phase. Plus I thought the reflection was pretty.

Articles this image appears in: Victoria amazonica

Creator: Bilby

Suggested by: Bilby (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It is quite a lot underexposed, almost a stop. Probably need to bump it up a fair bit. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot about that lens, now that you point it out. The 200mm always underexposes half a stop or so, which I forgot to adjust for today. I've replaced it with the longer exposure version (I always auto-bracket). - Bilby (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the lilypad in the corner, but otherwise it would make a fine FP. I won't ask for a retake, but the lilypad is really distracting. Nezzadar ☎ 05:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the lily pad adds more to the EV and isn't distracting at all. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Watering Cans[edit]

**Original** - A collection of watering cans of assorted sizes.

The image is high resolution with attention to multiple watering cans. May not have a wow factor, but it does illustrate the subject well. I would be interested to see if any modifications are needed for the image to reach FP status.

Articles this image appears in: Watering can

Creator: Bas Leenders

Suggested by: Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not sure an image of watering cans would have enough EV to get nominated as a FP. People tend to be very critical of images that have limited use on pages. Technically it's a good photograph I think. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do have a sprinkler, so it's a possibility :-). Having said which I find the lighting on this one not too comfortable and composition a little awkward. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I can try for the most boring FP ever, that can be my hook to get people interested (at least the sprinkler has water in motion). I was glad the lighting wasn't overexposed, but some of the shadows do appear distracting. Would the lighting be able to be adjusted in Photoshop (such as removing the light on some of the cans and the back wall)? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sprinkler. This, however, has too many issues. The distracting cut out light in the background, the poor contrast, and the cluttered subjects to name a few. Nezzadar ☎ 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. The contrast could be adjusted, but can the lighting be modified using Photoshop? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lighting can be modified to an extent, but IMO not enough, and not much point as other issues would likely take it out anyway. --jjron (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Canadian Horseshoe Falls[edit]

It's of a good height and twice as awe inspiring.

Articles this image appears in: Niagra Falls

Creator: Ujjwalkumar

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't stand a chance of FP status, as it is far too blurry. Look at the buildings and the grassy areas off to the sides of the waterfall. Sorry, I can't help you here. Nezzadar ☎ 05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

The horizon is leaning to the right. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish jewellery-Gold and emerald pendant at VAM[edit]

I believe this jewellery image could be a potential Feature picture due to the high educational value and the subject's artistic value as well as a fine photography. However, it is not very sharp, and I only cropped it a little, so I know the noise on the background should be removed. It is obtained via OTRS, so its permission process is not finished yet. I also wonder it can be FP regardless of the said weakness. Caspian blue 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Emerald, Gemstone, Jewellery, Pendant, Victoria and Albert Museum

Creator: by Jinho Jung at Flickr

Suggested by: Caspian blue 00:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Possibly could be a FP, it would need some graphic artist work, there is a white artifact on the right side of the image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the noise on the upper right? --Caspian blue 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you view the full image there is a white artifact, i assume it wasn't fully cropped off on the right side, it needs cropped... I'll fix it, give me a minute. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've corrected the problem, there was a small stripe of 1 pixel wide white pixels along the lower left side of the image, not sure what it was an artifact from but I got rid of it. Now it's black all the way around. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the OTRS ticket will have to be confirmed and valid before you nominate this for FP, since if that doesn't validate it will be deleted. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice.--Caspian blue 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wish I could convince more people to release images under free licenses, every time I try they ignore me or have some irrational fear of the "commercial use" clause. *sigh* Congrats on getting this wonderful image though. :D — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

A skeleton in Uncle Sam's closet[edit]

**Original** - a political cartoon showing Uncle Sam (who is going to protest about Russia's exclusion of Jewish immigrants) seeing the ghost of the Chinese Exclusion Act in his closet.

Great commentary about exclusion hypocrisy.

Articles this image appears in: Chinese Exclusion Act, Sinophobia, Chinese American history

Creator: Infrogmation

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Needs rebalancing as it has no true black. This is something Durova is good at, and I would take it to her. Once it's rebalanced, the image will become crisper, and will become FP quality. Good find. Nezzadar ☎ 05:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Jailbroken iPhone[edit]

This picture has great lighting and is one of my favorites.

Articles this image appears in: Jailbreak (iPhone OS)

Creator: Chadpadilla

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not too bad, but harsh inconsistent lighting would be frowned upon for a 'studio' shot so would be very unlikely to have much success. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. If you want to illustrate jailbreak or custom themes then remove the case for the photo also. Ditch the screwdriver and the text and zoom in and lighting like [2] could be fairly good. The caption has how it was lit. You can achieve the lighting with a normal light and a longer exposure. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Embracing Son from War on Terror[edit]

Riveting angle and a picture that moved to tears.

Articles this image appears in: Military brat (U.S. subculture)

Creator: Signaleer

Suggested by: Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Refer to this just failed nom for what you could expect. This one has lower quality and probably less 'emotional pull' so would be even less likely to succeed. Some quality issues, in particular that badly blown sky at top right and a large tilt. --jjron (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rub it in Jjron... :( Nezzadar ☎ 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconder

TSS Earnslaw[edit]

File:TSS Earnslaw 2.jpg

Original - TSS Earnslaw cruising along Lake Wakatipu

I suppose it meets all the criteria- and at least for me looks good :)

Articles this image appears in: TSS Earnslaw

Creator: trakesht

Suggested by: trakesht (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wouldn't pass FP, the subject is far to small (boat) and it's EV for the linked article is very low due to that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Female White-Cheeked Gibbon[edit]

I'd like to see where this one sits - I'm just starting to give animal photography a go. The photo shows the female gibbon, which is quite different in appearance from the male, is quite sharp and at a high resolution. I'm pretty happy with the exposure given the range in the shot and the light colouring of her fur.

Articles this image appears in: Northern White-cheeked Gibbon

Creator: Bilby

Suggested by: Bilby (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looked at this last week but didn't get around to commenting. Anyway, it looks pretty good to me, couldn't remember any real quality issues. Some things I would suggest that may come up if you nominated at FPC. It looks maybe a little underexposed in the main, though looks to be quite tough lighting conditions as the upper parts of the arms are very bright, perhaps even blown - you've mentioned this too, and overall you've done it quite well. The cutoff left arm would unfortunately work against it, would have been great to get right out to the hand, but as is it looks a bit awkward. The other negative is that it's a pretty strong profile shot - we don't expect animals to be posing for the photo, but it's usually nice if they're looking in the general direction of the camera. Thanks for your nomination. --jjron (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if any of the other shots are a tad closer. The hassle was the light colouring against a necessarily dark background - if you increase exposure (everything was auto-bracketed half a stop and in raw, so I could give this a shot) the right arm tended to get blown highlights. But I may have a couple of alts that will help - as per normal with animals, I took a lot of shots. :) And thanks for the comment - I'm hoping to learn to do more than offer architecture to Wikipedia one day. - Bilby (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just what we need - another Aussie contributing high quality animal images for Wikipedia and FPC ;-). Seriously though, it's great to get more people that can contribute high quality original work here. Drop by with anything good you've got, and if any of the architecture stuff is particularly good, don't be shy about that either. There's a whole FP category for architecture. --jjron (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added edit with a few tweaks. --jjron (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edit - makes it pop better. :) I've been looking at the other shots, and the problem is that when she looks straight into the camera you loose the black strip on the head - which is a key identifying characteristic of the species. It is still sort of there, but not quite as plain. I need a shot from slightly above to have a full face portrait with the patch, or have her looking down just a tad. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, can be hard to get it all. Any shots with the full animal at least (no cutoff arms, etc) that are up to this one? --jjron (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None that I prefer - the 200mm shots had trouble getting everything in, so one arm or the other looses a bit, and the 50mm shots, while at sufficient resolution to be cropped, show the composition problems from her pose. (Her arms are impressively long, so you get this big expanse of nothing with a body in the bottom third). I went back today to see if I could make a second go at it, but I made the mistake of bringing my wife, who didn't understand why I wanted to spend two hours at the gibbons waiting for the right shot. :) I did find a nice flower, though, as per above, and I'll make another try when I can sneak off on my own. - Bilby (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Functorial Resolution of Singularities[edit]

Resolution of singularities is a complicated process both computationally and theoretically. In some simple cases it has not too many steps and it can be shown explicitly without. In the given example the basic important features of the resolution are shown. The diagram is simple as the topic requires to avoid distractions. The blowings-up and the exceptional divisors are given. The article Resolution_of_singularities didn't have any information about how the resolution is produced. The present image is a first step in a plan to add a sketch of the proof in the article. There are some issues I don't like from the image. Firstly I think it would be good to have some margin, at least a little and secondly the current version is a PDF, when I made the SVG the text lost the spacing. I don't know so far how to solve these. Posting the image here is also a way of catching attention by editors proficient in vector graphics. Is possible but I didn't know about some other page/project dedicated to retouching images.

Articles this image appears in: Resolution_of_singularities

Creator: Franklin.vp

Suggested by: Franklin.vp 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When I click on the image, I get the error message

XML Parsing Error: not well-formed
Location: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Functorial_Resolution_of_Singularities.svg
Line Number 1, Column 9:
%PDF-1.4
--------^

I added the "br"s. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the get the same error. Right clicking and saving target give you the file. That's another problem that needs to be solved. Franklin.vp 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit blurry, is this svg safe or regular fonts? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is something about the way wikipedia displays PDFs, when you save the file the SVG is there with its infinite resolution. Thats why the SVG has to be produced. When I did it with Inkscape (as ZooFari suggested me) the text lost the spaces (see first version of the file). That's why I uploaded the PDF so that at least the article has the information readable until the technical corrections of the file are done. Franklin.vp 17:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I also flirted with inkscape, but got rid of it since I don't have the time to learn it. I use Paint.NET, a freeware that mimics Adobe Photoshop, but does not make svgs. Durova uses GIMP, another freeware, or at least I think she uses that. Someone suggested it to me anyhow. Try those. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Requesting withdrawal Thanks to ZooFari the visual tweaks needed were done. He said maybe some XML cleaning was needed but I do not know about that. Externally it looks as I ( or the article) needed. Franklin.vp 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Picture peer review/ Wikipedia:Picture peer review/File:Virtual Boy system.png

Bioluminescent mushrooms[edit]

The glowing mushroom cluster is very interesting in this light.

Articles this image appears in: Foxfire_(bioluminescence)

Creator: Ylem

Suggested by: ( fi ) 22:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What is the exposure, any special lighting (UV?) needed to do this? This is important info to include in the description of this image since the brightness of the glowing is important. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also noting that the size seems fairly small for a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, uploading the full version would stand a better chance at a FP then one that barely is larger than the minimum requirements. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think it'd have issues on size grounds. Also seems to be backfocussed, but couldn't say unless it's bigger. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Old Port of Marseille[edit]

Nice View of one of the most beautiful spots in Marseille

Articles this image appears in: Marseille

Creator: Imehling

Suggested by: Imehling (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This looks to be OK quality and is quite good, but I'm not completely convinced. It seems to have a substantial bend to it, I'm not sure if its a result of the lens used or perhaps a two (?) image stitch, as there's no metadata and no further information provided. Regardless of the cause, this can sometimes be taken as acceptable, sometimes not. Unfortunately that building at front is cutoff at the bottom and there's possibly a slight excess of sky at the top - not sure if that could have been avoided by getting more at the bottom (looks like you were shooting off a rooftop), but that could also work against it. --jjron (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture is an image stitch of three pictures. I used Hugin Panorama Creator for stitching. The bend results from the cylindrical projection of the stitched picture. Here is another version with rectilinear projection. Do you think it's better?
  - I actually think I do prefer the alt. Still looks to be a slight warp and the bottom corner of that building is still clipped, but not as bad. I prefer the lighting in the original though, you probably haven't done the same post-processing. Could possibly stand to lose a little sky through a crop (maybe 10% of the image height) to give it a slightly more 'panoramic' look. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your competent advice. I have uploaded a new version with a slightliy cropped sky. Unfortunately the bottom corner of the building is still clipped. Maybe I am going to look for it in my next holidays.--Imehling (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

M&T Bank Stadium[edit]

This is Wikipedia's best photograph of M&T Bank Stadium's interior and is featured prominently in the article. It is also notable because two cabinet members are watching their alma maters face each other on the gridiron. EDIT: Robert Gates did not attend the Naval Academy, it was a mistake on my part.

Articles this image appears in: M&T Bank Stadium, List of American football stadiums by capacity, List of current National Football League stadiums

Creator: Cherie Cullen, United States Department of Defense

Suggested by: Pgp688 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hard to know what to make of this. The quality seems quite good and it's actually not a bad photo of the stadium itself, though those three people at front are definitely quite distracting and are really the focus of the shot. They are however notable people, but on the other hand you only really see the back of their heads and there is some quite harsh flash lighting on them (and I note this isn't used to illustrate their articles). Overall I don't think I'd support it and tend to suspect odds would be against it, but it's hard to really say how it would fare for sure. --jjron (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to crop the image? --Pgp688 (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean crop them out completely? Unfortunately doing so would take off the bottom corner of the field itself and probably impact its chances. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it can be saved. There are better shots of both Condi and the stadium out there, it's just a matter of licensing and locating the images. Nezzadar ☎ 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Pebble Beach sunset[edit]

This image is, simply put, beautiful. I find the colors very attractive, as well as the (off-camera) sun shining against the water. The silhouette of the trees adds a nice effect, as well.

Articles this image appears in: Pebble Beach, California

Creator: TrickyNik

Suggested by: Dylan 620 (contribs, logs, review) 12:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This doesn't have any EV in Pebble Beach, California so would likely fail at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Makeem, it's pretty, but lacks EV. Would not pass at FPC, sorry. BTW, the creator is Nik Roby. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Confederate Dead at Devil's Den Gettysburg[edit]

This is a historic picture that is depicting a small portion of the bloodiest battle in the American Civil War. It meets the size requirement by more than triple. Furthermore, the image is the object of some doubt because of the fact that some scholars believe it to be staged. The image shows great details of the fallen solider and the location he died. There is a bit of wear on the image with a rip down the center of the picture and a few other artifacts that make me question putting this up for FPC. I'd like to the feedback of people here, and if possible some minor cosmetic help to help with the aging issues. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in: Devil's Den, Alexander Gardner (photographer)

Creator: Picture taken by Alexander Gardner. Originally uploaded by Edmund Ferman.

Suggested by: ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As a minimum it would need to be restored to remove the cracks in the plate and other issues. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your comments, I've worked on restoring the image. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder