Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Archives/Oct-Dec 2010

Shortcut 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

Very Important image in the field of infrastructure in India.

Articles this image appears in

Rameswaram TV Tower, List of tallest structures in India

Creator

flickrPrince

Suggested by

Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I sort of like what the foreground does for the image, but the tower is hazy... --I'ḏ♥One 02:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with IdLoveOne. Haziness would likely prevent passing at FPC or VPC. Jujutacular ^talk 19:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I uploaded this picture I found on flickr to Commons about 3 1/2 years ago. I think it demonstrates the hydrophobic effect beautifully and am interested to see what everyone thinks of it as I am not a photography expert. I wrote the description myself but its a paraphrasing/re-iteration of material in the hydrophobic article as I'm not a science expert either.

Articles this image appears in

hydrophobic effect, drop

Creator

tanakawho

Suggested by

Quadzilla99 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Compositionally its good. But the image quality is lower than I think would be expected for a repeatable shot like this. I suspect the saturation has also been turned up too much. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, I don't think it'd pass FPC. It might do at VPC, the only thing is the high saturation. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ty. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

This seems to meet all the requirements of an FP except the side > 1000 pixels issue. I'm a bit confused whether this is suitable to be a FP as it's not by a wikipedian and is the subject of an article rather than illustrating an article, so thought I'd ask here. Bigger digger (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Sunbaker, Max Dupain & Culture of Australia

Creator

Max Dupain

Suggested by

Bigger digger (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I don't think this would make it. An image being the subject of an article is fine, it usually suggests that it was chosen by an editor as the best image on the article, but this doesn't have a dimension above 1000px and according to the picture info the actual thing's over a square foot. --I'ḏ♥One 22:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the only potential problem is that it's possibly too small, not that it's a work of art? Bigger digger (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm telling you, I'm being nice compared to how harshly it would probably be criticized on FPC, and, let's be honest: It's a museum piece. Someone could go to the National Gallery of Australia and just take a larger high-quality photo of it. If FPC was going to pass an image this size there would need to be something very exceptional about it, and even then there's no guarantee because they might not think it has enough encyclopedic value. BTW there's actually a lot of disagreement with the current 1000px dimension requirement, a bunch of users want even bigger images. There's nothing stopping you from nominating this at FPC if you want to try, but I see almost no chance for it succeeding there personally. Could probably pass at Valued image since it seem to probably be the best image on the article's subject. --I'ḏ♥One 03:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, no worries, I'm not bothered either way, the query came up at DYK as its article is being nominated — thought I'd use it as an opportunity to find out about the mysteries of FP. Thanks very much for your feedback. Bigger digger (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, too small given the dimensions of the photograph. If a better scan could be obtained, this would stand a good chance of passing. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Long version starts here: I've done some minor tidying to the article on bump mapping recently, including sourcing the key problem or limitation with the technique that shapes given a bump map only LOOK like they've got a bumpy surface because of the way they reflect light. The shape itself isn't actually changed. This is important because it can cause problems with obtaining realism in bump mapped images but I was unable to find an image which actually showed this important limitation clearly; so I created this one. I know it's early days for VP, but I think the encyclopaedic value should be clear and I might as well get feedback on it now. I hope there's also a chance for FP.

Some technical background about the image: it has been raytraced using POV-Ray at a high quality using effects such as radiosity (to improve the realism of the ambient lighting) and fog (to soften the background and create the mottled light pattern on the ground). This makes the "fake" CG appearance of the left hand, bump mapped sphere all the more obvious sitting next to the right hand, isosurface sphere.

Short version starts here: High quality ray traced image showing an important, and therefore encyclopaedically valuable, limitation in bump mapping by comparing a bump mapped sphere (left) with a sphere that actually has a bumpy surface (right).

Articles this image appears in

Bump mapping

Creator

GDallimore (Talk)

Suggested by

GDallimore (Talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Version 2 added with improved bump map to show that the technique can give very good effects. Also, I have increased the similarity between the surface texture of the two spheres for easier comparison. Also, slightly increased lighting from the front but higher contrast. Any comments on either version before I submit to FP? GDallimore (Talk) 12:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Interesting and the digital imagery is very good. I can barely wrap my head around what this is (a technique of digital reproduction of a surface?) but yes, I think it could maybe pass. However, I gotta say Ray tracing (graphics) has a lot of very good images. --I'ḏ♥One 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, and I agree there's already some great stuff out there. The thing about this image is that it isn't intended to be ultra-high quality - it's intended to be highly encyclopedic with at least some artistic quality. I've been working on some artistic improvements, though, and am ready to do a new version if I get any suggestions for improvements. GDallimore (Talk) 15:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare to have a highway photo from 1917, let alone an image of the first highway centerline in the country. After some discussions with the Michigan Department of Transportation, I've obtained this 10.08 MP copy from the original photo in the MDOT archives to replace previous, lower resolution copies. Some minor enhancement is in order, but otherwise the scan is in remarkable shape for a photo taken by a non-professional photographer in that era. Suggestions for improvement are appreciated.

Articles this image appears in

M-15 (Michigan highway) (the highway designation in 1917), County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) (the road designation today), Road surface marking, Michigan Highway System, Timeline of United States inventions (1890–1991)

Creator

Unknown photographer for the Michigan State Highway Department

Suggested by

Imzadi 1979 → 00:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Definitely a better picture than the smaller version that was nominated in August, but still not up to FP quality for historic photographs in my opinion. I appreciate that this is rare photo, and a better version will not likely surface, but it's just not there. Thank you very much however for tracking down the high resolution version. (I encourage others to comment if they disagree with my assessment) Jujutacular ^talk 21:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I get some specific, objective reasons why you feel that way? Is there anything possible to improve the image in question? My opinion is that the EV should outweigh the fact that Ansel Adams or a similar professional/artist was not the photographer, as this photo documents a moment in history. We have tons of highway photos that show centerlines and other lane markings, but none of them show the first highway with a centerline. I can rephotograph Dead Man's Curve anytime I'm back to visit my hometown, but no current photo will have the vintage wooden guardails, the period cars or the original style of centerline. (It has the plain, boring modern paint scheme now. Imzadi 1979 → 23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Dough notes below, it is a little bit blurry. It's a bit overexposed (the sky is completely blown out). Also, is that some damage to the photo in the bottom left corner? Jujutacular ^talk 16:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• The photo looks vivid as a thumbnail, but upon looking at it at a full resolution, the image is a little blurry. When this photo was taken to FPC, a PNG version was created that showed the road more vividly. I would support the use of the PNG version. However, if that is not possible, the current version of the photo is fine to use, but may not necessarily meet FP criteria. Dough4872 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not picking up any blurriness on my screen. Is there any specific area you were detecting blurriness? As for vividness, that was was probably from tweaking the contrast and brightness, something I haven't done here. This is a straight scan from the negative by the photo lab at MDOT. Imzadi 1979 → 23:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By bluriness, I mean the quality is not 100 percent. I've seen some black-and-white FPs that have better quality. Dough4872 00:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I find this photo much more interesting than many POTD like minerals. The photo is not perfect, but is really quite good, and being the first centerline is quite interesting. There are other interesting aspects to the photo as well, for example the many glass insulators on the poles are quite different in arrangement from today's poles. Showing contemporary vehicles is a further plus. A hearty thumb's up.--Statr (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you never heard of Seppuku, it means to disembowel yourself to maintain honor instead of dying from your enemie. Its really crazy. Anyway, I would like to know if this would likely to pass a FPC before actually doing so. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Disembowelment, Seppuku

Creator

Waiapo

Suggested by

GamerPro64 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• It is pretty good, but I can't see a reason why a higher resolution scan couldn't be made. Unfortunately the uploader hasn't been around since 2008 or so. How hard would it be to track down a copy do you think? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually harding than you would think. link Would it pass if I don't have a higher resolution version? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might do (I'd just try it). There is this, which is bigger, but I don't know about copyright status etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's already one like that. I was planning on adding it to FPC after this picture's nomination. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Looks pretty, and has some EV too.

Articles this image appears in

Depth-of-field,V-Ray

Creator

Purpy Pupple

Suggested by

Purpy Pupple (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• My thoughts for depth of field is that a photograph does a better job for Depth-of-field (because the subject would be less abstract for the reader). I'm not so sure that EV is particularly strong for V-Ray too. You can always give it a go though. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A photograph probably does a better job for depth of field but the caption for this image in that article reads, "Digital techniques, such as ray-tracing can also render 3D models with shallow depth-of-field..." so I think that it does have some EV in that respect, in informing the reader that depth-of-field can be simulated as well. However, it seems that previous nominations for similar pictures have been shot down pretty badly, so I'm not sure if I should nominate this. Purpy Pupple (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a fair point (and one I'd mention during the nomination). There is only one way to truly determine if it will pass or not (give it a go). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nominated! :) Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt 2 looks better --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

clear, shows detail

Articles this image appears in

Pit stop

Creator

[1]

Suggested by

Nascar1996 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The image quality and encyclopedic value look good to me. It might be slightly underexposed though. Just a note: it appears in Pit stop and not Pit Stop, which is a different article. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I am wanting it to be featured, but I don't want to get all opposes, so do you think it is valued or featured, or neither? Nascar1996 15:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that you should nominate it for featuring. Also, try increasing the brightness by 0.5 ev or so. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea how to do that. Nascar1996 19:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The picture has excellent quality, good EV, and is a featured picture on Turkish Wikipedia.

Articles this image appears in

The dogs of war (phrase), Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), 1876, Ottoman Empire

Creator

Adam Cuerden

Suggested by

Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Would very likely pass FPC. High resolution scan, used very well in the articles. Fix 'creator' however for FPC - John Tenniel. Jujutacular ^talk 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

• Passed FPC. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I never added an picture to FPC, I would like to know if there is any problems about it before shipping it off. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Viet Cong, Starvation

Creator

Tom

Suggested by

GamerPro64 (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This looks pretty good to me and the licensing seems to be in order, maybe some overexposure on the white areas. What I don't get is why is an image just from the '70s in black and white? Also I fear some people at FPC might whine say you need to make a pretty strong case for its encyclopedic value cause it might not be enough for them that this is a historic image.
  
  If not FP maybe VP for starvation? --I'ḏ♥One 22:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I guess I could try a VPC first. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is almost blindingly white. I wonder if it's the scan or the actual photo. Either way, that would probably be enough to prevent it from passing FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a possibility that this picture can pass a VPC? GamerPro64 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this has a strong chance of passing VPC. Jujutacular ^talk 19:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ya, go for VPC. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Conclusion

• Passed VPC. GamerPro64 (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very useful composite of multiple references describing anatomical locations. After numerous adjustments, it should be very accurate, but feedback is still appreciated to get closer to perfection.

Articles this image appears in

Kidney, Gallbladder, Vertebral column, McBurney's point, Trunk (anatomy), Celiac artery, Human rib cage, Transpyloric plane, Oblique fissure, Horizontal fissure of right lung, Liver

Creator

Mikael Häggström, using images in the Public Domain

Suggested by

Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Yours are good biology pictures that IMO are very high in EV, I think there's a chance. --I'ḏ♥One 02:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm thinking of giving it an entry in WP:FPC once it's been a while on WikiProject Anatomy and on general display in the articles to ensure that the anatomical accuracy is all right. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

• Nominated at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the pictures of a pitaya on Wikipedia are not of a high quality, so I thought I would contribute one that is. I'm hoping to get some feedback to see if it's suitable or has any chance as a candidate for Featured Picture.

Articles this image appears in

Pitaya, Hylocereus and Hylocereus undatus

Creator

S Masters

Suggested by

S Masters (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This probably falls a bit short of the FP standard. We have a lot of good fruit shots. Check out Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Plants/Fruits. This one isn't too far short, so it might have a chance, but I wouldn't count on it. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make it better? Any suggestions? - S Masters (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

• Very nice, I think it could pass, and the edges are pretty smooth. The background shadow's a bit unrealistic, but other than that I personally don't see anything wrong with it. --I'ḏ♥One 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have softened the shadows so that it does not look so harsh. Any more comments before I try this at FP? – S Masters (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I have decided to be bold and nominated it. Do I remove this from here now? - S Masters (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just leave it here. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. - S Masters (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

• Nominated at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good picture, high EV as it is by far the busiest bridge in the Quad Cities and a very major transportation artery

Articles this image appears in

Quad Cities, Interstate 74, Bettendorf, Iowa, I-74 Bridge

Creator

Ctjf83

Suggested by

CTJF83 chat 01:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lots of compression artifacts. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do I do to prevent that/fix it? CTJF83 chat 02:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check out Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload#JPEG_tips. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already deleted it from my camera, is there a program to get rid of the noise, or do I have to retake it? CTJF83 chat 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think a featured picture is salvageable from this. The tilt, distortion and white sky don't help either. You'd need to retake it (perhaps on a nice day and further downstream) to pass I think. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Impressive picture of good quality, especially for that time. Good EV for the Bashkir people and for the railway.

Articles this image appears in

Bashkirs, Trans-Siberian Railway, Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky

Creator

Eloquence

Suggested by

♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• My guess is that it would get a similar reaction to the previous Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky photographs. There are already quite a few for that author, so it would rest on the EV in the first two articles. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Noodle snacks here with one caveat. If this, or any other Prokudin-Gorsky photo, is particularly famous, notable, or representative of his work, it would stand a chance at FPC without having high EV in other articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

High definition, a lot of detail, high encyclopedic value.

Articles this image appears in

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almindelig_Valn%C3%B8d Macro photography, Juglans regia

Creator

TobiasKierk

Suggested by

TobiasKierk (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A good image, but since this image seems to be a lot better, I'm not sure if this would get featured. Purpy Pupple (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree that the picture linked is better, but different. This picture shows, more distinct, the characteristics of the seed. TobiasKierk (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I like this picture, it wouldn't pass FPC because there's already one, you can try VPC --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Less than ideal lighting. Cropped too tightly. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Despite its small size, I think it'll be able to pass VPC for high EV and great quality.

Articles this image appears in

Southern California, Downtown Los Angeles, List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles, List of tallest buildings in California

Creator

Mfield

Suggested by

Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Indeed too small to pass FPC. People vary on size requirements when it comes to VPC (there's nothing specific in the criteria), but it's probably worth a shot. Jujutacular ^talk 07:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that it can pass FPC becuase it's above 1000pixels (1024X167) and VPC has a newly made resolution criteria of 800 pixels. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the criteria, "Panoramas need to be substantially larger than 1000 pixels in the longer dimension in order for sufficient details to be seen." There's no guideline for "substantially larger", but I'd say this doesn't come close to being big enough. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Relatively good image composition and shows information about the war. i.e. Air supply drop, weapon used. It has decent resolution despite its relative historical value. Likely to be a valued image as well if not featured.

Articles this image appears in

M14 rifle Weapons of the Vietnam War Operation Junction City 1967 in the Vietnam War

Creator

Movieevery United States Army

Suggested by

TheROfan (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• This is probably worth adding to Airdrop. It would have more EV there than in any of its present articles. I don't think it's useful enough in any current articles to meet the EV requirement at FPC. It's also not in great shape, so some restoration would help, although it's probably too small anyway. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

The picture is of good quality and good EV.

Articles this image appears in

San Francisco Bay

Creator

Ehiris

Suggested by

Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Quality is so-so, would likely fail at FPC. It is in the article's "recreation" section, but the sailboats and kite boarders are not extremely significant in the image's composition, which detracts from its EV. Probably border-line in terms of passing VPC. Jujutacular ^talk 20:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing I just noticed: the horizon is tilted a bit. Jujutacular ^talk 04:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to the above, I also noticed that the brightness of the image is very uneven, likely owing to vignetting of individual frames before stitching. Also, the image is not very sharp nor a very high resolution for a panorama; and the sky suffers from some image noise. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I took this very quickly...a lucky shot.

Articles this image appears in

Diwali

Creator

Rishabh Tatiraju

Suggested by

Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I can't see anything exclusive to Deepawali in this image, and it's severely over-exposed. theROfan 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Beautiful emotions in one picture

Articles this image appears in

Hurricane Ike

Creator

Staff Sgt. James L. Harper Jr. (U.S. Air Force photo)

Suggested by

Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Emotions, though desirable in movies and such, are usually not useful in encyclopedias, and this picture does not provide any other encyclopedic value. Purpy Pupple (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Beautiful emotions" when somebody is crying... jeeees. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You guys are cold. Emotions are good for illustrating a disaster's effect on residents. After all, if you make a big explosion it will be emotional enough, but if you set somebody running away from it, it will get really stage-ready. ResMar 03:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A visceral view into the effects of natural disaster. This photo has numerous encyclopedic uses. It demonstrates without any text what has occurred and it changes the way you feel when you look at it. This photo grabs the viewer as they sympathize with it. Humans read encyclopedias. Humans have emotions. The two are not mutually exclusive. Garretttaggs55 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

I saw this image while looking a a friend of mine's userpage, and liked the visual appeal and "WOW" factor of it so I decided to stop by here to see if anyone thought that this could be a good FP/VP. Best, Mifter (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles this image appears in

Fireworks

Creator

UpstateNYer

Suggested by

Mifter (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Beautiful, but it's cutoff on the top, the tree obstructs a little, but I personally don't think it's much (not that someone else might not disagree). I have a feeling that something like fireworks might get some controversy because they happen a lot and could be represented in many ways. At any event it would stand a much higher chance if it wasn't cutoff. --I'ḏ♥One 02:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder

Of the several thousand automobile images that I have uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, I think this one is by far the best. The background is interesting and attractive, the car is of the preferred ¾ view as specified by WikiProject Automobiles, and the car is free of any major shadows or reflections (a very difficult aspect of automotive photography). I have made some minor changes to the image, but require assistance in cleaning up the paintwork of the lower door panels, wheel arches, and the side skirt. I have intentionally left the colour balance, brightness/contrast, et cetera unaltered as I never seem to get the balance quite right.

Articles this image appears in

Holden

Creator

OSX

Suggested by

OSX (talk • contributions) 14:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'm guessing the chief complaint would be that the car isn't clean. It is also a little underexposed (the white car has thrown the metering a little). Noodle snacks (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You might also gets complaints that there isn't enough Lead room or that the license plate isn't blurred. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconder