Wikipedia:Picture peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Place suggestions and self nominations for Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates (FPC) below. Anyone can then comment on a suggestion and recommend improvements. If the suggestion meets FPC guidelines and no significant objections remain, another editor can second the suggestion and move the candidate to the FPC page for voting. If a suggestion doesn't find a seconder within one week, it can be archived in the PPR Archives to make way for new suggestions.

[edit] Suggestions for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

[edit] Willie wagtail in flight

in flight

Rhipidura leucophrys or Willie Wagtail is a bird of approximately 20cm in length its an extremely active bird to have captured a still photograph of it flight is quite remarkable, and that alone is worthy of FP consideration but the question is whether the photos technical characteristics are sufficient to for a nomination. For a quick reference to understand the birds size this image has one near a tea pot.

Nominated by

Gnangarra 07:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Great capture, but poor technical quality. The poor thing is riddled with jpeg, noise reduction, and oversharpening artifacts. I doubt it would pass because of those, but it's great at thumbnail size for use in articles. Thegreenj 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Moth wing scales

Scales on the eye spot of a male Luna moth

This is a high resolution image taken under a dissecting microscope. I have several images of different areas of the eye spot under different magnification but this one is probably the best. The iridescent color of the scales is visible.

Nominated by

Peter Z.^Talk 05:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I know this is probably a hard shot to come by, but it seems grainy. Elephantissimo (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the grain is the actual texture of the scales, although I am not sure if all of it is. Peter Z.^Talk 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Long-eared owl

A long eared owl in Bulgaria

It has good quality,the target is in the center and the target is watching the camera.It is taken with a FinePix S5700 S700.

Nominated by

Pavlen (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm pretty sure that the quality isn't FP quality. The composition is pretty good, but because of how it looks at full zoom and even about half-zoom, I don't think this will make it. The picture is just very noisy. Elephantissimo (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Diving Emperor Penguins

An Emperor Penguin can hold its breath anywhere up to 20 minutes, and dive over 550 meters (1,800 feet) deep.

It is of good quality, the object as at the centre. It is in the public domain. It is an intriguing picture with a caption that provides interesting information (has a "wow I didn't know that") quality. There are not major obstructions to the subject, it's all in good focus aside from the snow background. One thought may be to lighten it slightly, I noticed it looks better slightly lighter in the lower resolution. It's full resolution is over 1,000 in both directions. New to the FPC thing but wanted to give it a crack. SGGH ^speak! 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

SGGH ^speak! 15:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The focus on the front is pretty good, but the tail seems to be out of focus. What you should try to do is darken the background a little, because for me, it's a little distracting. Elephantissimo (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd give this one a go at FPC without any adjustments; dark snow is just, well, strange. But change the caption—it should describe the picture rather than be trivia about the subject. It's much better as on the image describtion page because the trivia is tied into the photo itself. Thegreenj 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Hurricane Dennis (1999) GOES

Hurricane Dennis on August 28 while off the coast of Florida.

Hurricane Dennis on August 28 while off the coast of Florida.

To be honest, I'm a little fond of this picture. While I'm not 100% certain of this picture as a FP, I'd like to get other opinions of it as well before making a decision. It should probably be noted that a second image, Hurricane Cindy (1999) GOES.JPG, is cropped from the same image that Dennis is, but the whole version of the picture has not been uploaded. Comments, as always, are requested and much appreciated.

Nominated by

Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hurricane pics aren't exactly flavour of the month at FPC after what I'd best describe as a hurricane image 'spamming' of the page a few months back. Size would certainly be an issue - it does meet requirements, but for an image like this, more would be expected. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• A nice, clear image, but I wish it wasn't cropped so close. If I didn't read the caption, I'd have no idea where, or even in which basin the hurricane's in. It would also be nice if it was larger both directions. A goog image, no doubt, but I'm not sure it would pass FPC. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

After seeing size being the main point of contention, I've uploaded a larger area shot of the hurricane. Now you can make out Florida and Cuba, and you have an idea as to what basin it's in. By the way, for anyone wondering, the reason this one is a PNG while the other is JPG is because I had a fickle time getting an image upload on Commons as a JPG. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Bridge

The Alexandra Bridge crossing the Ottawa River with Gatineau, Quebec in the background. Taken from Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada

One of the only things I haven't accomplished in my time on Wikipedia is a featured picture. Going through my contributions, I feel this is one of my best. It's a clear picture that well illustrates the subject, and I think it's a well composed shot with the greenery adding a nice border along the bottom. Do others feel this might be FPC worthy? One problem is that there was enough haze that day to make the buildings in the distance not as clear as they could be.

Nominated by

SimonP (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Well, I'm no expert, but I figure some comments are better than none: I think it's a very nice framing of the bridge. The lighting is only average, however; and as you note it's hazy in the background. A circular polarizing filter would bring out the blue in the sky. It seems a little noisy at the higher resolution. Taken during the Golden hour you might get better lighting and interesting reflections. As for composition, while I like the church spire in the background, the high rise buildings are boring and ubiquitious. A nighttime shot (if the bridge is well lit) or a foggy day might reduce the plainness of the background. I'm ambivalent about the greenery in the foreground; it makes the image different, yes, but it's fairly plain greenery. If it were flowers blooming it might be amazing. I think I'm bothered by the stalks being cut off... maybe if it were just a bit more lush. The nice lines of the trusses are polluted somewhat by the white boats in the behind them; I'm not sure how I would avoid that at this angle, and it's a good angle. I do think it's a promising bridge to photograph.--Fletcher (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Urban Explorer, Hobart, Tasmania

An urban explorer in the underground rivulet, Hobart, Tasmania

Edit1: An urban explorer in the underground rivulet, Hobart, Tasmania

Seems to meet the technical standard, high resolution, free license, accurate, adds value to an article (urban exploration) and clearly illustrates the subject. There is a little color fringing (visible at 100%) on the top left hand side, I am wondering if the image should be resized such to eliminate this (but maintain resolution requirements), or if the extra detail in the rest of the frame would be more important. There many also be some image manipulation possible to reduce the distortion. Any other input would be good too

Nominated by

Noodle snacks (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I really like this. In my mind it would have a good chance at FPC, but you can't predict what will appeal to voters (some may for example say that this is an easily reproducible shot and complain about minor technical details like the slightly blown highlights at the top or the shadows at top right and off to the left). I can't comment on all the technical details because the 5MB filesize discourages me from looking at it fullsize, but at image page size I can't spot many other obvious flaws.

OK, what do I like about it? I think it's a very good capture for this topic showing the explorer in slightly 'scary' garb suitable to his cause about to disappear into the tunnel (now some voters may complain that he doesn't look animated enough). He is framed by the copious yet interesting graffiti and the running water at his feet, even including some detritus on the tunnel floor. Re the shadows and lighting I mentioned above, as I said some voters may complain, but I find the lighting very atmospheric for the photo, with the daylight pushing in from the top and the picture disappearing off into inky blackness in other places, showing what the explorer is heading into. OK, so to me, very good work and worth a try at FPC.

Some suggested improvements first though. I think it could do with more detail in the description on the image page (e.g., where 'under' Hobart is this...). I think it could it go to a more prominent place in its article, as it is superior to the other pictures. It could also probably be a slightly bigger size at thumbnail in the article as we rather lose the explorer at that size. I wonder if it may also be useful in any other articles, for example is there any relation to this explorer and the Cave Clan?

Good contribution and good luck. --jjron (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I could only provide approximate location underground; It is hard to give the location when you have been walking without known landmarks in sight for a kilometer or two. I'll have a look at some satellite photos later and see if i can pin point the location. There is no direct relationship with this explorer and the Cave Clan, however there is plenty of cave clan tagging where this picture was taken. Animated explorer was not really too practical for this shot, as the longer exposure was required to get a good balance of natural light. I could have pushed the ISO considerably but this would have increased the noise etc. If you look at the full print the explorer is holding a flashlight. The highlights at the top left are not blown due to over exposure (take a look at a histogram) I think its actually some lens distortion (common on my 17-85 IS USM). Either way, I have done some editing to remove the Chromatic aberration on the top left hand side, now it looks good at 100%. The edited picture is attached on the right, let me know if you think its an improvement. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, with the opening to the street above I thought it may have been possible to pinpoint where this was, having said which I have been to Hobart and realise that there are lots of these openings to the rivulet from the streets. Yeah, I figured it was probably a long shutter speed, I was just identifying the fairly casual explorer as something some may complain about. This camera could have handled ISO400 quite successfully (I have the same camera), having said which there appears to be some noise already, more than I would have expected. Looking at the fullsize, you're right, there are some weird things going on up at the top where the light is coming in, even in the edit. There are some blown areas at the top, I don't think it's anything to kill the nomination, but they are definitely there. With those problems I don't know how easy they would be to fix as they're a little unusual, but it does come up a lot better in downsized form; a 50% downsize really covers those problems, and still comes in well above requirements at 1944 x 1296px. Will leave it with you. --jjron (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well I think this image is just captivating... if it weren't interesting enough it's got a mini-waterfall thrown in for good measure! The overexposure in the top left seems like the main issue. And from this angle the smaller side tunnel's circumference is clipped. I don't have a problem with the explorer's appearance... he looks weird, as any underground explorer should look. His flashlight is not easily discernible until viewed at the high resolution. I don't have enough experience here to say whether it's a viable FP, but hey, I like it. It looks cool in B&W, too. Fletcher (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] U.S. flag folding animation

Folding the flag of the United States

Very accurate and detailed animation on the proper way to fold the U.S. flag. Although the image is not of very high resolution, the image should be able to be easily recreated in a larger format if necessary, which would be suitable as a featured picture.

Nominated by

–Dream out loud (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's definitely informative, but I think it should be slowed just a tad. Elephantissimo (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Elephantissimo; it goes by too fast to really make sense of what's happening. Have the line come up right away if you wish, but increase the time between it appearing and the fold, by at least 100%. Matt Deres (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Personally I like the image (although I agree it should be slowed down) but I'm not a massive fan of the grey colour that dominates the for most of the animation. What would people think about replacing it with just an outline to represent the initial size of the flag? Guest9999 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea to me. Elephantissimo (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Looming Death

Scaled model of flattend Hiroshima city after atomic bomb explosion. The red ball represents the point of explosion. Picture taken at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum

This picture dipicts the scale of the damage the city sustained from the atomic bomb explosion in Hiroshima.

Nominated by

Rabin (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I like the information conveyed by this image, but as far as FPC is concerned it would not stand a chance. For starters it is only 800 x 600px, but requirements are a minimum of 1000px. For an image like this that is presumably quite reproducible (a photo of a museum display) more would be expected, and it would not be granted any favours. I expect there would be other concerns too, including the shadowy lighting, but the size would finish it before it ever had a chance. It's a worthwhile contribution though. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] TriMet city center transit

Current downtown area transit service

I have a created a number of maps/diagrams that depict transit service through the downtown Portland, Oregon area, including on the Portland Mall. They are all in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon. This is my most recent one and, I believe, the most useful. It shows current service (while buses are removed from the Portland Mall for construction) and is closest to reality in that, unlike Image:TriMet CityCenter.svg or some of the older diagrams, routes are separated into two different lines when they actually travel on two different streets in a couplet (one in each direction).

Moreover, unlike the official map, routes are colored using different colors and not just gray so you can follow individual routes through the area. Nor is there a bombardment of boxes like on ones that were placed on-street in bus shelters (close-up here without map) and on bus stop sign posts (close-up here)

As for the FP criteria I believe that:

• Regarding #1, it's in SVG and the code is clean and very small
• Regarding #2, it's set for low resolution, but since its SVG, it can be enlarged with no problems
• Regarding #3, it's probably among the most detailed diagrams on Wikipedia and is the only one in its subject
• 4's OK
• Regarding #5, I'm not sure how useful a transit map of a specific area is in an encyclopedia
• Regarding #6, it's mostly based on the linked official map
• 7's OK

And for another example of a featured transportation diagram, see Image:Chicago top down view.png

Lastly, I would upload this at Wikimedia Commons, however I do not have an account there. If someone else wants to move them there, I would be OK with that as long as they can still be visible in Category:Transportation in Portland, Oregon.

Nominated by

Jason McHuff (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• First of all let me congratulate you on the great job you appear to have done. I think my main areas of concern would focus on two areas. One would be what you've mentioned above Re Criteria 5. I'm not entirely sure of its value - personally I don't find it particularly interesting or useful for me, however if I was going to Portland or happened to live there, then I may have quite a different opinion. My other main issue would be verifying its accuracy; since you have linked to a reference presumably it can be verified, but for me (and I'd suspect a lot of voters at FPC) I'm not interested enough to go and check it out, in which case I wouldn't vote on it. Finally can I just make a few suggestions.

• I realise that size isn't an issue for SVG, but at this size I find the text hard to read - if you uploaded at a slightly bigger size (say 1000 to 1200px wide) would it display big enough to read without downloading it and opening it in an external editor? If so, that would make it more useful.
• I'm not entirely sure about the transparent background - personally I prefer a fill colour, I believe there is some sort of recommendation for bg colours on Wikipedia but I don't have enough to do with them to know for sure.
• Can you check the alignment of the text. Most of it looks quite good, but other parts look to be a bit random, for example down the bottom with the "Mill, Montgomery, etc" stuff.
• Another point is that I have no idea what all those terms refer to - Davis, Couch, etc, etc. Are they streets, suburbs, what? And why do some have < and > in front of them? --jjron (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] James H. Clark Center at night HDR

HDR image of Stanford's James H. Clark Center at night

Interesting view of one of Stanford's newest buildings. Difficult to capture without HDR (compare to this version).

Nominated by

Starwiz (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Looks great: good contrast; symmetrically balanced; low noise. Seems like a great candidate -- _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• An interesting photo. Pretty cool, really. Now for the "buts". The article James H. Clark Center is barely even a stub -- if you want the photo to have a chance as a FPC, I'd suggest fleshing it out, with such info as who Mr. Clark is/was, who the architect was, and what's going on inside the building.

Second -- was this an off night at the labs? The right side is much brighter, giving the photo an unbalanced feel. Reprocess to brighten left up? Definitely dim the right, which has some blown highlights, especially on the first floor. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The labs on the left side have shades on the windows, while the labs on the right don't--you can see it best on the third floor, where the shades are pulled down only two-thirds of the way. (The top floor on the right side of the building also has its shades pulled down, incidentally.) I'm not sure I'm Photoshop ninja enough to make it look more symmetrical, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the comments! --Starwiz (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

• Alternative version nominated at FPC as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/James H. Clark Center at night HDR-2 by Starwiz. --jjron (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USNS Mercy and Rainbow

The U.S. Military Sealift Command (MSC) Hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19), anchored off of the coast of Jolo City. Since its arrival, Mercy's staff has assisted thousands of local citizens with medical and dental care. During its stay, this care was provided by a portion of Mercy's staff working side by side with their Filipino counterparts at several medical centers in the city, as well as patients being given care on the ship itself. Mercy is on a five-month humanitarian deployment to South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands. U.S. Navy photo by Chief Photographer's Mate Edward G. Martens (RELEASED)

I have enjoyed seeing this photo every time I look at this article. I had a little free time and found out I could nominate photos to be featured. This is the one I always think of as the best on Wikipedia (that I have seen mind you), and I thought I would nominate it for at least peer review to get input.

Nominated by

Nicolaususry (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Cool photo -- could probably be improved with some judicious cropping, especially of the blank water in foreground. Maybe try centering the rainbow? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the shoreline really follow that parabola shape? Also, the sky is grainy. MER-C 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I compensated for the lens distortion, darkened the sky slightly (to compensate for the slight overexposure there), applied some light sharpening and contrast increasing, and selectively blurred the sky to reduce the noise. The forground was cropped out as it didn't really add anything.Noodle snacks (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Much improved, thanks. The grainy sky may preclude promotion to FP. Pete Tillman (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Sea Cucumber

Tree like structure of a Sea Cucumber (Gen. Holothuroidea)

Aesthetically appealing, the subject is hard to photograph itself and the photography result is a perfect example of scattered/soft light. It portraits marine diversity, natural morphology that evolved in a curious, interesting form. High res image, low noise, unintervented by editing software, well compressed, can work as wallpaper image.

Nominated by

Abestrobi (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can I ask straight away how sure you are that this is a sea cucumber? It doesn't look like any sea cucumber I've ever seen. I'm not convinced it's even an echinoderm, and I'd want a pretty conclusive identification to convince me it was a holothuroidean - it looks more like some type of coral. Which then raises the next issue with this picture in that it really needs a species ID (at least a genus) for encyclopaedic value. At the moment I'm wondering whether this should be removed from the article until a positive ID can be made. Re the picture itself I would doubt it would succeed at FPC due largely to ordinary composition, including being cutoff at top, bottom and side, and uncertain focus. I also can't understand why this is over 3MB when it's only 1600 x 1072px - that's not "well compressed", this wouldn't need to be any more than 1MB tops. OK, will leave it there. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Eggs

Ostrich egg compared to common chicken and quail eggs

It's a high-quality image that succinctly illustrates the difference in size between various species of bird eggs.

Nominated by

Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Nice job, but people at FPC will cite color splotches on the ostrich egg and a possibly request more sharpness.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's a good comparative image, but at a quick glance there appears to be a Depth of Field issue. It appears that a narrow DOF has been used, probably due to the lighting, and the focus is approximately at the top of the chicken egg. This leaves the bulk of the ostrich egg and also the quail eggs a little out of focus. I would personally doubt it's chances at FPC for those reasons. --jjron (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Geranium maculatum

A Geranium maculatum in the gardens behind the Smithsonian Castle.

Brightly lit, little noise, high resolution... if you think it needs to be edited feel free.

Nominated by

Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 16:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's a pretty picture, but I would think it would be unlikely to succeed at FPC. It seems to have a very narrow depth of field, probably too narrow, especially for a top down shot. There is a clear region in focus, but with DOF so narrow there is probably not enough. The bottom edges of the lower petals in particular are uncomfortably out of focus. Please note the filename Image:Smithsoniangardens5.jpg is also very undescriptive - the filename should suggest what the image is, such as an identification of the flower. It is also not used in any articles, which is a requirement for FP. --jjron (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Rose at University of the Pacific

A closeup of a modern garden rose at University of the Pacific.

I think that the resolution is good, the noise is low and little, the focus is tight, and the picture is balanced. I am not good at computer editing of images, so feel free to tinker if you can improve the image.

Nominated by

ApeironCalamity (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Distracting, cluttered background. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with the Spikebrennan's comment. A cropping would serve you well. Otherwise, it's a nice picture.

Seconder

[edit] Kayleigh Pearson

Kayleigh Pearson, at ExCeL London, September 2005.

This is my first time nominating a picture, so I thought I'd get some advice from an experienced head here first. I read the criteria for the featured picture review and it seemed to tick every box. I didn't want nominate it straight away in case it didn't meet the criteria set. Thanks!

Nominated by

--Jimbo^[online] 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's not a stand-out FP candidate. You could improve image quality greatly, without reducing encyclopedic value, by downsampling to something like 2500x1700 pixels, but I doubt this would improve its FP chances. It's a little blurry and noisy, the girl is very centrally composed and it's generally not striking enough to prompt FPC reviewers to want to see it on the main page. Facial expression is great, having said that, and I personally prefer this kind of spontaneous, flash-lit shot to the clichéd, pseudo-glamourous shots that normally end up on these bio pages.--mikaul^talk 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• A criticism you see quite often on FP is "background is distracting" - for example, see this. Admittedly, shots of celebrities on good backgrounds are hard to get, but you might receive that criticism anyway. 137.205.179.218 (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Angel through the trees

Anthony Gormly's Angel of the North, just south of Newcastle.

Good hi-res shot from an unusual angle

Nominated by

Leeplonker (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• One big thing working against this would be that there is already a FP of the Angel of the North - . While this doesn't disqualify a second version being featured, personally I can't see that this photo provides any further information about the sculpture. Another option would be to go for a Delist and Replace nomination. While this one has some advantages (e.g., size) over the existing version, I find the lighting for example better on the existing version. Thanks for the contribution. --jjron (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I find the trees to simply distract from the main topic, and I don't see why seeing it through trees would be a more informative, featured-picture-esque viewpoint. It doesn't give any more information on the topic either. The size is an improvement, however, but doesn't do anything for me personally. SGGH ^speak! 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

[edit] Exploded computer 6

The parts of a personal computer.

Current FP; base of above.

webcam?

This began as an effort to display various computer peripherals and ended up as the mother of all computer diagrams. I used a current FP (which would be delisted in favor of this one) as a base, and expanded it greatly. However, since I am not the original author, the perspective is only approximately whatever the original creator used, and is "cluttered," removing focus from the main monitor/CPU area. Also, while the numbers are more international English labels may be more appropriate here. Any ideas?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominated by

HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the whole picture is extremely helpful. I'm not so sure about the English labels, because you have a pretty good description, in multiple languages, no less. It's also very good-looking; the colors are easy to look at. I would go for it, but wait for some other opinions. Elephantissimo (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The international documentation was already present for the parts included in the current FP, but adding it for the new items is tedious. Is there a place on the Commons where I can ask for help localizing? Also: does it need a webcam?--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How about speakers? Thegreenj 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I think if you have an iPod, a webcam would be a good addition.
• Would there be any copyright issues with the depiction of the iPod? Guest9999 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No, considering I got it from a free-to-use image. (The link is on the image page.) Does it need to be black or grey so it's more neutral? No other item here is associated with a specific company, but the iPod is so generic... (Also: speakers are on the way!)--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Although I'm normally big on the "iPod is an mp3 player but not all mp3 players are iPods" I' have to agree that the iPod is the best way of characterising an mp3 player. Webcam would be nice but I could only find this (png) on Commons and this (svg) on OpenClipArt. Although the first is probably more typical of a webcam the second has the benifit of already being svg. /Lokal_Profil 23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm going for a unified, generic, stylized look of the hardware. (That's why I'm worried about the distinctly non-generic iPod and its color.) I'd (more likely: I'll) have to create the webcam from what already exists in the image, much like how I created everything else new. Speaking of which, how are the speakers? They're based off of this image.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I tried a webcam and it looked flat. (It's built out of curves, which is harder than the semi-axonometric boxes.) So unless you want me to put the lens inside the monitor, I don't think a webcam is happening. It should be good enough already.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The speakers are nice. Possibly the image on the side could be usd as a webcam but otherwise just skip it. ANyhow the image turned out very nice. /Lokal_Profil 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

I'll nominate this myself, then...--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I personally would run this as a "delist and replace" nom for the current FP. However, if the consensus is that it has changed significantly, it can go through the normal procedure.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Peer Review Archives

[edit] hockey bugs

my E.tiaratum

for people to see the wonder and amasment in these cool creatures that are never the star to a show or a main character in some kids show but are used for some cruel game shows........

Nominated by

B jacob (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

people who think spiny leaf insects are dumb are dumbst

Comments

• Tells a story, this picture, and tells it nice. Better than many that captures the subject sitting pretty, merely capturing its likeness. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconder

Picture Peer Review Archives Mainpage

[edit] Pictures that need placing on an appropriate article

If you have an excellent picture, but can't think where to put it, add it to the section below. Similarly if you need help in writing a new article on the subject of a photo, request it below. If you are unsure of what plant or animal is in a picture please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

[edit] Pictures that need moving from other Wikipedias

If you have found a good picture on another language Wikipedia that would benefit the English Wikipedia, suggest it below. The image may need confirmation on its identification and assistance with translating the caption and moving to Commons before placing on the equivalent English language article.