Wikipedia:Picture peer review/De La Salle Institute Sign
[[:Image:20070906 De La Salle Institute Sign.JPG|thumb|A sign outside of the De La Salle Institute
I just think this is a neat photo that ads to some articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Creator
- TonyTheTiger
- Nominated by
- TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comments
- Tilted, low EV, ordinary composition, average quality, trite message - sorry (I don't mean to be too harsh or terse, but you've put so many PPR images up at once it leads to rather brief feedback). --jjron (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is EV? Are you evaluating this from the FP or VP perspective?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- EV I think you've figured out. Re FP/VP, to be honest you couldn't even consider this for FP, but EV relates to both projects. --jjron (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to be submitting dozens of pics to PPR, and you will surely be commenting on many of them. Let's just operate under the assumption that all my submissions and all your comments are from the VP perspective and unless you say otherwise FP is out of the question. In general, all my pics will need basic distortion corrections as I understand it so that is sort of a given. The question is whether I have captured anything worth working with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You say you are going to be "submitting dozens" of pictures to PPR - I think this is actually counter-productive. With the dump of, what, 20-odd images here in the last couple of days, you'll notice you're getting very few comments. I know you're not intentionally spamming the project, but I think it has the same effect. Can I suggest you try being a bit more selective? Put up one or two at a time, focussing on the ones you feel are particularly good, then give them about a week to attract comments, then put up another. Even actually try one or two of your best ones out at VP and see what feedback you get (pass or fail, it will give you a better idea of what people are looking for). In general you'll get a more positive response if people think you've put a bit of thought into it yourself, rather than them thinking you're just shoving on every picture you've ever taken and wanting them to spend their time reviewing and editing them. Just my opinion. :-). --jjron (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may be aware that I am not a photograher. I view PPR as an effort that does not take much time for reviewers compared to reviewing an article. I don't know much about critiquing a photo. I will not submit any new images until next week. If you tell me which of my images you think is best, I will take it to WP:VPICS right away.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- What about trying the one MER-C edited below? At least the lighting etc look quite nice. Make sure it meets VP's one month time limit though (if the original had been in the article for that long, replacing it with the edit should be fine). --jjron (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you officially second that one and close out the PPR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't need a seconding for you to proceed to FPC/VPC (a seconding pretty much indicates that person will support at FPC/VPC). Just do it when you're ready, and probably note it on the PPR nom here. I'll just close that along with the next batch. --jjron (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you officially second that one and close out the PPR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- What about trying the one MER-C edited below? At least the lighting etc look quite nice. Make sure it meets VP's one month time limit though (if the original had been in the article for that long, replacing it with the edit should be fine). --jjron (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You may be aware that I am not a photograher. I view PPR as an effort that does not take much time for reviewers compared to reviewing an article. I don't know much about critiquing a photo. I will not submit any new images until next week. If you tell me which of my images you think is best, I will take it to WP:VPICS right away.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You say you are going to be "submitting dozens" of pictures to PPR - I think this is actually counter-productive. With the dump of, what, 20-odd images here in the last couple of days, you'll notice you're getting very few comments. I know you're not intentionally spamming the project, but I think it has the same effect. Can I suggest you try being a bit more selective? Put up one or two at a time, focussing on the ones you feel are particularly good, then give them about a week to attract comments, then put up another. Even actually try one or two of your best ones out at VP and see what feedback you get (pass or fail, it will give you a better idea of what people are looking for). In general you'll get a more positive response if people think you've put a bit of thought into it yourself, rather than them thinking you're just shoving on every picture you've ever taken and wanting them to spend their time reviewing and editing them. Just my opinion. :-). --jjron (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to be submitting dozens of pics to PPR, and you will surely be commenting on many of them. Let's just operate under the assumption that all my submissions and all your comments are from the VP perspective and unless you say otherwise FP is out of the question. In general, all my pics will need basic distortion corrections as I understand it so that is sort of a given. The question is whether I have captured anything worth working with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- EV I think you've figured out. Re FP/VP, to be honest you couldn't even consider this for FP, but EV relates to both projects. --jjron (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Seconder