.JPG)
- Reason
- Good image, pretty, high res.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nymphaeaceae
- Creator
- Redmarkviolinist
- Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think at present, the image lacks focus. I would crop roughly 20-30% off the right side to make it a portait shot with more focus. At present, there is a lot of bland green space and little interest on the right side. Capital photographer ( talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can fix that.
ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ
Drop me a line
§
04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Crop 1 is far more focused and nicley balanced. A real improvement. Capital photographer ( talk) 07:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - the composition does not showcase the plant well enough. It is just a good snapshot of some attractive flowers/plants, but just one of many of this plant family. It does not stand out above the crowd - a sparser composition with water in view (it is a water lily) would be better. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)\
- Oppose all. Quality is way below the standard. Fuzzy, noisy, and tons of JPG artifacts (especially given the rather small size). No detail, low enc flower shot. Sorry for the harsh criticism, but I can only urge you to try Wikipedia:Picture peer review first, and/or lurk a around some more before you nominate any further pictures. -- Dschwen 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all - technical quality is too low for such an easily reproducible photo.-- Svetovid ( talk) 09:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not FP quality due to glaringly obvious technical issues. -- Sharkface T/ C 19:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - In addition to the remarks above, this is not a water lily ( Nymphaeaceae), and BTW the 'article' is just a redirect, but a Lotus ( Nelumbonaceae). Lycaon ( talk) 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image on the bottom has better technology quality.
ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ
Drop me a line
Review Me!
12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Noise removal is not the silver bullet. The NR removes the noise alright, but also removes any remaining detail. This edit has less value than the original. -- Dschwen 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per above. EgraS ( talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reason
- Good image, pretty, high res.
- Articles this image appears in
- Nymphaeaceae
- Creator
- Redmarkviolinist
- Support as nominator ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I think at present, the image lacks focus. I would crop roughly 20-30% off the right side to make it a portait shot with more focus. At present, there is a lot of bland green space and little interest on the right side. Capital photographer ( talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can fix that.
ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ
Drop me a line
§
04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Crop 1 is far more focused and nicley balanced. A real improvement. Capital photographer ( talk) 07:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - the composition does not showcase the plant well enough. It is just a good snapshot of some attractive flowers/plants, but just one of many of this plant family. It does not stand out above the crowd - a sparser composition with water in view (it is a water lily) would be better. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line § 05:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)\
- Oppose all. Quality is way below the standard. Fuzzy, noisy, and tons of JPG artifacts (especially given the rather small size). No detail, low enc flower shot. Sorry for the harsh criticism, but I can only urge you to try Wikipedia:Picture peer review first, and/or lurk a around some more before you nominate any further pictures. -- Dschwen 14:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose all - technical quality is too low for such an easily reproducible photo.-- Svetovid ( talk) 09:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not FP quality due to glaringly obvious technical issues. -- Sharkface T/ C 19:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - In addition to the remarks above, this is not a water lily ( Nymphaeaceae), and BTW the 'article' is just a redirect, but a Lotus ( Nelumbonaceae). Lycaon ( talk) 13:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image on the bottom has better technology quality.
ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ
Drop me a line
Review Me!
12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Noise removal is not the silver bullet. The NR removes the noise alright, but also removes any remaining detail. This edit has less value than the original. -- Dschwen 18:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per above. EgraS ( talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)