Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Apr-Jun 2011

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

Lake Moogerah[edit]

Visually appealing, meets criteria and to see if any of my photos are of high enough standard.

Articles this image appears in: Lake Moogerah

Creator: Shiftchange

Suggested by: Shiftchange (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The resolution is fine and the composition is good. Overall its a nice image but it wouldn't pass FP as its not up to the standard, containing a lot of noise and isn't completely in focus. While it does illustrate a view of the lake, one showing the entire length of it or from elevation would be better suited and have higher encyclopaedic value. Keep it up though, you have the technical ability and your images are good, it just isn't quite there I'm afraid. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I think the composition is nice. It covers a span and a field of view of 212.4 degrees wide by 73.0 degrees The colors are vivd and the clarity is very nice. The size of the image is big enough and the level of details is extremely high. People can browse the image and discover lots of details. You can see the interactive version here: http://gigapan.org/gigapans/79586/

Articles this image appears in: http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Byblos_Port ( karimsaad (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Panorama#Gallery ( karimsaad (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC) ) http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Byblos_International_Festival#Interactive_Panorama ( karimsaad (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Creator: Karimsaad

Suggested by: karimsaad (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Yeah, it has a lot of resolution, but there are really obvious stitching problems which would prevent it from passing. For example, the horizon has a wierd kink in it. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Tahrir Square[edit]

An amazing photo during an amazing event

Articles this image appears in: Tahrir Square and 2011 Egyptian revolution

Creator: Drumzo

Suggested by: The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I agree with your comment, but simply scaling it up to get it above the size requirements won't work. The image quality is very low. You should contact the author directly and ask for a bigger size. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked the author for a bigger size and the biggest one he has is (720×478) which doesnt fit the size requirement -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image I see is 1,800 × 1,195 which is fine, but it's blurry. Great subject but not FP, IMO Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

It's in our hands[edit]

Demonstrations against Mubarak next to Tahrir Square (1st February, 2011) standing next to Lion statue in Qasr al-Nil Bridge

Articles this image appears in: Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution up to the resignation of Mubarak

Creator: M. Soli

Suggested by: The Egyptian Liberal

Comments

This may have EV, but the lighting's just all wrong for FP. It's not just a bit shadowy, it's very dark and shadowy. If the protesting being shown was particularly dynamic there may be some allowances made, but the guys are just standing up there taking photos and texting, so I doubt that would help. The article contains a number of other images with quite active protesting taking place. --jjron (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of image noise. A few strangely colored pixels in random places. Not terribly eye-catching. As jjron says, quite a few other images in the article show the protest better. If any of those are high-quality shots, they'd certainly stand a chance at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Auricularia auricula-judae[edit]

I'm not quite the artist I'd like to be, nor is my camera the best in the world. However, I am pleased with this picture, and think it serves to illustrate the features of A. auricula-judae fruit bodies well (the colour, the hairs, the folds, etc). It has been stable in the article (which is a good article) for several months, where it is used specifically to illustrate the section on the appearance of the fruit body, offering something different from the younger specimen used in the infobox. I've not nominated any of my own pictures before, so I was wondering what people thought of it. It's not stunningly sharp at full res, but it is does have a very high resolution.

Articles this image appears in: Auricularia auricula-judae

Creator: J Milburn

Suggested by: J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I wouldn't mind it's not 100% sharp. But the DOF is to shallow in this case. The only thing that is sharp enough is top spot, while the rest blurry. I also don't want to see a slimy creature on the mainpage while I am eating. --Niabot (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably oppose this if it were on FPC. The DOF is too shallow, and I don't like the composition (especially the big overexposed patch in the top-left corner). Incidentally, I thought the version that is currently the lead image in the article is very good: the DOF is again a bit shallow, but if you could re-shoot something similar (perhaps a focus-stack would help) then you might get something which FP-worthy. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with NotFromUtrecht about the article's lead image. To be honest, I think it's nearly there and might actually have a shot at passing. I don't know a lot about mushrooms, but that shot seems to say a lot about the environment in which this mushroom grows. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Bradgate House panorama[edit]

High-resolution, good EV, interesting panorama

Articles this image appears in: Bradgate Park

Creator: NotFromUtrecht (talk)

Suggested by: NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Looks pretty good; can't see any obvious stitching errors or anything. Composition looks pretty good. A few things. (i) The sky colour looks a little, well, odd; given a few noms have been getting challenged for unrealistic colours and oversaturation recently, I'd just want to make sure this is genuine and realistic. (ii) The building is bit uneven maybe, for example those uprights at left look a bit tilted; now it's entirely believable that a building this age is like that in reality, but would just want to confirm that's the case, rather than a tilted photo having been used to make the pano. (iii) there's some spots in the sky about two thirds of the way across; they may be distant birds, but they may be dust spots. I'd be inclined to clone them out. --jjron (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. (i): I still have the raw files, and I'm confident that the sky is fairly realistic; (ii) I looked at the original photos, and it's difficult to tease out the differences between uneven construction, perspective distortion and lens distortion. I think perhaps a slight perspective transformation to fix the lean on the two towers on the left might be in order. Other than that, I can't see any other major problems. (iii): fair point. I'm quite busy IRL right now, so will deal with points (ii) and (iii) in the next week or so. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK to me also, especially if you deal with ii and iii, I'd probably support. Pine _{(was GreenPine)} ^talk 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Leicester Castle[edit]

High res, high EV. I think it's an interesting building – but possibly too boring for a feature picture?

Articles this image appears in: Leicester Castle, Parliament of Bats, Grade I listed buildings in Leicester, Scheduled Monuments in Leicester

Creator: NotFromUtrecht (talk)

Suggested by: NotFromUtrecht (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Not too boring, and definitely fantastic resolution. The left most photo seems like it was oof, unfortunately, and the top right "turret" thing looks like the perspective is strange somehow. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm working on a new version which aims to fix some of the softness issues (caused by the panorama stitching process, as far as I can tell). As for the window on the right, I think the odd appearance may because of the way the window is constructed. It is a very old building, after all. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably support this. Hopefully you used horizontal and vertical control points to get the perspective right. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is the building slightly tilted? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 03:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I've noticed a stitching error, so will have to do some more work on the image before submitting it as a FPC. I'll check the tilting issue when I do this. As far as I'm concerned, this nomination can now be closed. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Sweetgum Seed Closeup[edit]

High Quality image, shows the texture of a sweet gum seed very well. In most pictures the inside of the holes would not be shown. Background also draws the eye toward the seed itself. May need a slight crop.

Articles this image appears in: Sweetgum, Liquidambar styraciflua

Creator: Nanoman657

Suggested by: Nanoman657 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Seconder

Pittsburgh at dawn[edit]

High resolution, great lighting, frames the bridges and highrise properly and generally looks quite good. Being a panorama it *has* been digitally modified though - stitched together (albeit seamlessly), which I'm not sure makes it a valid candidate for picture of the day. But it impresses me.

Articles this image appears in: Pittsburgh

Creator: Mfield

Suggested by: MiG (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I find it impressive too. If I were you I'd shoot for FP with it. :) Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Illustration for the term Ecchi[edit]

It is already featured in many projects and was under the finalists of Picture of the Year 2008 from Commons. It's last nomination in 2010 was denied because of bad composition (dutch angle) and that it would be to revealing for the main page. As no consensus could be found, i was told to renominate it after some time again. An alternative with different perspective would be the image to the left.

Articles this image appears in: Ecchi (on EN, further more on other projects) Note: both versions are in use

Creator: Niabot

Suggested by: Niabot (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues of composition aside, the leg on the upright JPG version is posterized. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the issue. Was actually an export error from Inkscape. --Niabot (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I can still see quite a lot of posterization: it's probably more noticeable in the blossom in the top left corner? Also, why have you uploaded this as a JPG not as a SVG, especially since the previous version is an SVG? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used some SVG-filters on the background and rsvg (used for thumbnails on Wikipedia) can't handle them at all. One example: File:Vergleich zwischen Manga und Foto (nur Zeichnung).svg --Niabot (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the SVG-version. But some details are expected to look wrong, depending on the renderer used. For voting´s i would suggest the export, because its always the same, that the images look bad, just because of the renderer used. --Niabot (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

White House Situation Room[edit]

Without doubt one of the most powerful and significant pictures that has emerged in recent times.

Articles this image appears in: Death of Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden

Creator: US Government

Suggested by: TheWilliamson (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If this was up for featured picture I would support it. TheCoffee (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support this image - at the moment anyway - simply because its importance has been exaggerated in the media who have wrongly captioned the image. They have led many to incorrectly believe this image was actually Obama and his cabinet watching the actual infiltration of bin Laden's compound unfold via video link and his shooting. This has seen revealed to be wrong. So, we don't really know what the real meaning of this image is other showing Obama's cabinet staring intently at the Situation Room screen. However, it is an interesting image, the image that has come to symbolise Operation Geronimo and I can see why some see it as an important image. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder