That was my fault; this should be moved to "at sunrise"... —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
While attractive, it lacks EV due to the lighting - no detail is visible on the ship other than that given by the silhouette, and same goes for other things it's supposed to be illustrating. Quality is also in question - on size alone this would be unlikely to pass, even though technically it just scrapes in to the minimum requirements. --
jjron (
talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's the point of the picture! :) That and the fog gives an eerie feeling to an old battlefield; it's mysterious, I guess. Right from
WP:FP: "This page highlights images that the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, stunning, impressive, and/or informative." I believe that this image completely fulfills the beautiful, stunning and impressive requirements, and it is only slightly less on the informative part; it shows everything that is in the battleground...the
museum ship, the monument, and the field itself. Maybe not 100% clearly, but you wouldn't have an amazing picture if this was taken at noon.
Also, what's the point of a minimum requirement if it won't pass at the minimum...? —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
So if you don't like my review, put it up at FPC. It's up to you. --
jjron (
talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Goodness dude, I didn't mean to insult you or give you the impression that I didn't like your review...my apologies. —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
No worries, sorry, I was probably a bit grumpy at the time. --
jjron (
talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Its a great picture, but it isn't that good as an encyclopaedic illustration. I doubt it'd pass for that reason
Noodle snacks (
talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I was thinking that it would be similar to
this... —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's a valid point. You'll note some people opposed that based on lack of EV - I tended to agree with that viewpoint. Re comments above on size, the 1000px limit is the lower limit, but landscape type photos are generally expected to be bigger in order to help see more details. Things like say bugs or flowers are generally able to get away at smaller sizes, because there's usually less detail that's going to come out at bigger sizes. As I pointed out (rather abruptly) above, remember comments here are a guide only, and you don't have to get reviewers here supporting in order to decide to go to FPC/VPC, so you're welcome to do so if you think it may have a chance. --
jjron (
talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That was my fault; this should be moved to "at sunrise"... —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
While attractive, it lacks EV due to the lighting - no detail is visible on the ship other than that given by the silhouette, and same goes for other things it's supposed to be illustrating. Quality is also in question - on size alone this would be unlikely to pass, even though technically it just scrapes in to the minimum requirements. --
jjron (
talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's the point of the picture! :) That and the fog gives an eerie feeling to an old battlefield; it's mysterious, I guess. Right from
WP:FP: "This page highlights images that the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, stunning, impressive, and/or informative." I believe that this image completely fulfills the beautiful, stunning and impressive requirements, and it is only slightly less on the informative part; it shows everything that is in the battleground...the
museum ship, the monument, and the field itself. Maybe not 100% clearly, but you wouldn't have an amazing picture if this was taken at noon.
Also, what's the point of a minimum requirement if it won't pass at the minimum...? —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
So if you don't like my review, put it up at FPC. It's up to you. --
jjron (
talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Goodness dude, I didn't mean to insult you or give you the impression that I didn't like your review...my apologies. —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
No worries, sorry, I was probably a bit grumpy at the time. --
jjron (
talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Its a great picture, but it isn't that good as an encyclopaedic illustration. I doubt it'd pass for that reason
Noodle snacks (
talk) 23:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I was thinking that it would be similar to
this... —Ed 17(Talk /
Contribs) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's a valid point. You'll note some people opposed that based on lack of EV - I tended to agree with that viewpoint. Re comments above on size, the 1000px limit is the lower limit, but landscape type photos are generally expected to be bigger in order to help see more details. Things like say bugs or flowers are generally able to get away at smaller sizes, because there's usually less detail that's going to come out at bigger sizes. As I pointed out (rather abruptly) above, remember comments here are a guide only, and you don't have to get reviewers here supporting in order to decide to go to FPC/VPC, so you're welcome to do so if you think it may have a chance. --
jjron (
talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply