Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.
For promoted entries, add {{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} to the bottom of the entry, replacing FILENAME.JPG with the file that was promoted.
For entries not promoted, add {{VPCresult|Not promoted| }} to the bottom of the entry.
Do NOT put any other information inside the template. It should be copied and pasted exactly, and only the first one should have FILENAME.JPG replaced with the actual filename.
Comment Certainly good quality, but I find the lighting problematic as the main facade is in shadow. There seems to be no reason why this cannot be re-taken in better lighting. --Elekhh (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alt is better in that the main facade is lit, although an afternoon image would be even better with the side facade in slight shadow to better emphasise the architecture. However, upon further thought, as the image is supposed to illustrate more than just the buildig (campus, neighbourhood), any broader framing would increase EV. Importantly, the Main Building, located across the street to the south is very similar and the two appear to form a sort of a gateway - thus this image is deceiving in showing the Machinery Hall in isolation. --Elekhh (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think this is a very flattering shot of him, hes sweaty and his hand gesture doesn't make a good portrait. — raekyT15:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original The way its elevated there's not really any good way to crop this image or emphasize anything better. Might as well stick with the original, it has a nice sky, nice lawn, nice wall... --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original. Decent image, uncluttered so the focus is on the subject. Adds value to the EMD F40PH article. There could be better images of the train out there, but it's the best Wikipedia's got. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Regents Park is a popular residential choice for professional school (b-school, law school and med school) graduate students at the University of Chicago (taken from the 51st street overpass)Edit - by TonyTheTiger (talk·contribs)
Reason
This is a high EV photo of one of the primary residences for professional school (b-school, law school and med school) graduate students at the University of Chicago. See Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Regents Park for prior discussion. (perspective correction forthcoming)
This is a high EV photo. It is difficult to correct any better because of the angle the image is taken from. This Gimp correction is better than anything I can get out of hugin.
Oppose and Speedy Close As the PPR for this image stated, he doesn't have a chance. The edge of whatever in the foreground is distracting and the "corrected" version skews the structure to much and is unrealistic. — raekyT14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raeky. The sill obscuring part of the photo is problematic and the cropped version looks unnatural. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree that it's FP quality, the car in-front is too distracting, but forgiving the car, it's acceptable and high enough EV. — raekyT15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent illustration of the Northern krill's transparency, could be FP if wasn't so heavily compressed. --Elekhh (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Prairie Shores is a notable residential complex in the Douglascommunity areaEdit2 - Hugin perspective correction to make extreme building edges vertical
Conditional Oppose Support if it's notable it would have references, currently the article has one sentence without any references about the apartments, if you expand it with references I'll change to support, provided you show they're notable within the context of the community. — raeky(talk | edits)01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, I like that it says it was designed as a self-contained enclave to protect it from the surrounding slums when it was built, it says thats why it had little impact on the south side. Also not 100% convinced the reference shows it's a highly notable feature of the community? — raeky(talk | edits)14:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your objection to all buildings having articles, this is probably a correct inclusion of encyclopedic content. It is not notable enough to have its own article, but if you ask anyone from the neighborhood about the building they can point you to it. Given that it is a suitable subject in a book not just about Chicago, it is notable at some level nationally in architecture and urban planning circles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - One Museum Park, the tallest building on the South Side of ChicagoEdit3 by TonyTheTiger (talk·contribs) using GIMP to clone out helicopter shadow of hugin perspective-adjustment version using 3:2 aspect ratioEdit4 by TonyTheTiger (talk·contribs) using GIMP to clone out helicopter shadow of originalEdit5 by TonyTheTiger (talk·contribs) using GIMP to clone out helicopter shadow of hugin perspective-adjustment version using 4:3 aspect ratio
Question Why is there a dot to the left in all three versions? Is it a helicopter? My preference is for edit2. I like how the building looks leaner and taller and I like the straight-on view in the edits, but if the aspect ratio's realistic then I prefer the one that is, but not until the dot is addressed. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm between the original (preferably if you could get rid of the spot there, too) and in Support of Edit 3. After reading what Raeky said about altering the apparent angle to make it seem as though you're looking straight at building (amazing what we can with technology these days) does look better, but it seems to be better to keep vanishing points so height differences are easier to show. So... --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support It's a great photograph, congrats for taking it. But I oppose so long as it is in Inauguration of Barack Obama, where it clearly does not belong. Remove it from that article and consider this a support. Obama logo might also be dubious, since it's mostly obscured in the photograph too. — raeky(talk | edits)04:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it was even discussed in the review... can you point it out to me? It was clearly there when it was promoted though, but I just don't see how it relates to the article. It's, I think, supposed to illustrate the Context section, which discusses campaign slogans, I would think an image like File:Hartfordobama.jpg that more prominently displays the slogan would be more relevant. But thats my opinion. — raeky(talk | edits)07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
here is the issue that resulted in that section being added. I guess I chose to add the picture myself. I am not sure the section is relevant at all, but it was requested at FAC and I thought the picture went with the section. The picture can be removed if you think it is irrelevant, but most sections in the article about this highly photographed modern event have images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's for the Change We Need slogan then it would work fine, if it's for the round logo thing, then theres probably better that illustrate that. — raeky(talk | edits)07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, i know wikia is a fairly HUGE website, so they probably do have methods for handling copyright violations. Alternatively, if you can, you could just edit that file's page and put the attribution tag in. — raeky(talk | edits)07:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks feature quality, wonder what happened, well this version anyway. I support the one who's quality is more realistic. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I oppose the composition on the original and support the composition of the edit, not entirely sure the color correction was necessary, would like to see an edit cropped same way without the color changes. — raekyT15:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Acceptable, but could be better (longer exposure to soften water movement) and doesn't look perfectly centered. — raekyT15:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Standard shot, does not reveal personality, only physical appearance in a standard staged situation with a standard background. Limited educational value IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Standard shot, does not reveal personality, only physical appearance in a standard staged situation with a standard background. Limited educational value IMO. --Elekhh (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that was just on the first page, before nominating such low quality pictures AT LEAST look to at the LOC to see if better exists online. — raekyT14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a crop that follows some photographic composition rules like rule of thirds and lead room. To bad our most prolific and best restorer has burned out and doesn't participate much anymore, not sure who i'd suggest to restore it. These wouldn't be easy to restore. If done right it could definitely be a FP. — raekyT21:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support Edit 1 not a bad photograph, couple flaws though (light posts are very distracting and the people going the other way is confusing also probably not the sharpest image) that would be forgivable if there was EV, but there is virtually no EV for any of the above articles. Is this a regular race? If there was an article about this race I'd change my mind. — raekyT14:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could crop out the lightposts on the left. This race is considered a tuneup race for the Chicago Marathon, occuring about a month in advance. I believe it is one of the world's premier half marathons. As for the stragglers still in the first half of the course on the left, That is part of the natural composition of this image. I don't think any half marathons are really considered notable enough to have their own articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have a name and could you write an article on just this race alone? If this picture had it's own article I could see it having enough EV to get passed at VPC. Without it's own article it has almost no EV on any of those articles you have it in now. Something to consider. I like the view of the skyline in the background. — raekyT21:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add, if you cropped off the left light poles and successfully was able to clone the lights out of the sky on the left (shouldn't be too hard the sky is fairly monotone around them) then that would greatly improve the picture. — raekyT21:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to this because I don't think it showcases much of anything, even the parapets. All we see here are a few feet of the side-rear of the bridge's entrance/exit, but then again it's not really gonna be be easy to take such a photo of such a winding design. Maybe if it were more aerial... --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an obvious illustration of (one particular type of) parapet and one of many details of BP Pedestrian Bridge, therefore not enough EV. Elekhh (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--[reply]
Oppose per above reasons also. It doesn't illustrate parapets clearly. If it was more aerial as IdLoveOne said. -- Jack?!01:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Redeye is a magazine, how is their logo on a boat even remotely enough EV to justify the requirements of a VPC for any of those articles? — raeky(talk | edits)00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the boat's not at her best, (headsail furled and a reef in the main), so I don't see the EV as being quite there. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it is a very good illustration of green roof, used in several related important articles. Despite technical shortcomings, still the best urban green roof image on Wikipedia. --Elekhh (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support I'd like to see an alt with the roof more centered and straighted in the frame... it's angle is a little off-putting for me. — raekyT14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on edits, I didn't want an edit that distorts it in any way, I uploaded an edit, I simply just rotated so the roof was straight and cropped. Support my edit 2. — raekyT15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created it and started posting it when you apparently was making another edit, the first version you uploaded did noticeably look distorted. — raekyT21:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oversheared the first one making a 100 unit shift. I redid it with only an 85 unit shift in Gimp. This looked much better and probably as good as yours with more pixels of detail.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why use shear? I just rotated and cropped, so every pixel is perfectly in in proportion to the original, sheer changes things.. — raekyT21:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the grey roofs on the other side of the road (visible in original and edit1) add EV by emphasisesing the pioneering (i.e. oasis in the desert) appearance of the city hall's green roof . --Elekhh (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait you clipped a little off the left. I am going to look more closely at this in the morning. I am trying to figure out what you did. I apologize. I might not be thinking clearly at this late hour.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The specific steps, in Photoshop, i drew a line with the ruler along the edge of the green roof building, I then did arbitrary rotation, which auto fills in the degree based on the rulers angle, this quickly and easily rotated it right, I then cropped it so there was no white on any corner... Theres a gazillion guides that tell you how on google. — raekyT12:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My image overlaid over yours, with pink lines drawn over key prospective lines, the pink circle is where i used (setting mine to half transparent) to align the two images by (the weird architectural box thing on the top left of the building, stairwell probably).
Hiding the layer that was my image reveals that the lines don't match up right, there is distortion in your image throwing off the prospective.
Comparison of the two images with overlays.
What I did was I put my picture as a layer over yours in Photoshop, set transparency low on it so I could move it arround and align it. The area I thought I could best match the alignment was the area I circled in pink. I then drew pink lines over key prospective points on my picture then turned off the layer to see how those lines matched up on your image. They didn't match well at all, it looks as if there is distortion by the way you modified the image. If you want I can send you the .psd for this file so you can see for yourself. — raekyT14:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the lines don't match up. A shear and a rotation will obviously cause different pixel adjustments. I am just saying that distortion is a strong word and that I don't like the extra bit clipped off the left to eliminate the lower left whitespace. In this case, the "distortion" is very minor and I am not sure worth arguing about, but if you think it is significant, you know more about photography than I.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced of enough EV for any of the articles it appears in. Car in the center is very distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I mirror the same above, probably not the most EV image for Rainbow/PUSH, if there was an article JUST for the building then it may be enough EV for that. The car is definitely distracting. — raekyT14:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The car in front of the building is definitely not relevant and it would be much better if the photo was retaken with a clear road. Nev1 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably the best image we have illustrating the expressway, not entirely convinced though it's the best section of the highway to illustrate it though... — raekyT14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note on edit, we don't really REQUIRE license plates to be obscured, but since it exists it would be preferred over the original. — raekyT14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - When Hurricane Hazel struck Toronto, Canada in 1954, the Lawrence Avenue bridge was washed out by the Humber River; part of it remained attached to the shore, while the rest was swept away by the river.
Reason
This photo was taken the morning after Hurricane Hazel struck Toronto. The author agreed to release it (and others) under the CC-BY-SA license. This particular photo shows the considerable damage caused by the rising Humber River so there's the big encyclopedic value. Considering the timing/subject, it's quite difficult to replace.
Oppose Image quality is rather poor, looks to be upscaled from a much smaller image. Even though this event took place in the 50s better images have to exist. Plus I don't think this image of the set provides the most EV for the event. Better images probably exists in the Canadian archives or US archives that can be acquired probably at no cost if someone actually looked/searched. — raekyT14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Raeky, thanks for you comment. I'm pretty sure this is a scan, and the original photograph wasn't of the highest quality. There are problems with finding a better image is that for not I haven't encountered much US-stuff, let alone images that can be verified to be PD (although I admit some bias on that since I'm in Canada and Hazel's been covered from a Canadian perspective), and secondly because it was in 1954, to be PD-Canada, it'd have to be done the work the Canadian government to have a chance to be PD. Because 50 years have passed, it would PD in Canada now but it's not PD in the US so it's not uploadable. I had to clear out a few files from Commons previously for this reason. And Library/Archives Canada has a very misleading and confusing website so that doesn't help. There are different photos in the category that you might find with higher EV, but from a Canadian perspective at least, I think that this photo has great EV because this sort of damage is exceedingly uncommon, and also this was taken the morning after with the flooding starting in the late evening of the previous day. Maxim(talk)14:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the first! But I think my point still holds that this seems rather granular and too narrow scope for the encyclopedia... — raekyT15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral It failed on mostly EV grounds because at this angle it appears to be the same height as the building next too it, and there is a CLEAR difference in their heights. — raeky(talk | edits)05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original I think it has good EV in showing the tower in its urban context, seen from the river, and a good educational value due to the real perspective effect which allows a better understanding of its (absolute) height than the perspective corrected version. However I think placing it twice in the article is overdone.... --Elekhh (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It may not be able to be retaken, but presumably the original exists therefore a better scan could be acquired, and presumably there was more then one photograph of this person taken therefore another image could be sourced. 300px is way to small. — raekyT14:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought it was quite common to make the article for notable deceased people that an image is hard to replace. Yes this guy was a professional athlete and was photographed often. The question is whether there are other images in the public domain. Also, I am not sure how size applies to VPs. I did not think there was a limit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a set size minimum, but 300 pixels is really asking a lot, it better be the absolutely most irreplaceable highest EV image you could think of for the article. And I don't see that here, as a professional there is bound to be better images out there, might be something we have to wait a few more decades for for them to enter PD, or someone might have to do some harder searching, or find the source of this image and get a better scan... — raekyT21:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of size any image that is over 250x250, is at or above the size that will be used in WP. Since we are evaluating images for their value to WP. Size should only count against a VP if it is less than 250x250. I am not an expert on what irreplaceable means in this context, but many images that are of rare subjects are considered irreplaceable. I don't think there is much that we are likely to find in PD space.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tilt is better. I see what you mean about the crop - so not sure on that one actually. Overall TBH I'm hardly wowed by it. Technical's aren't good, composition is very so-so, EV is OK but not huge (due to size and frankly pretty boring composition, I'm really only seeing that this is some guy in a hockey suit, can't even tell much about what he looks like, etc). Looks like about the only pic specifically of this guy we have, but I'm still not really convinced I'd regard it as 'valued' given all it's shortcomings. I would tend towards Neutral at best probably. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose 318 × 634 is way to small to be of value, very little EV for listed articles due to size, it's a guy catching a ball, doesn't demonstrate anything of value to Punt returner or Return specialist and is buried in Devin Hester, in which there has to be better images existing of him for that article as evidenced by whats in the infobox. — raekyT01:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to continue to oppose without explaining why an image needs to be greater than 250px since that is all we use in most cases? I.E., all images are basically downsampled to 200-250px. WP:VPC should not require any greater resolution, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it may be hard for you to believe, but some people actually (a) click on images and want to see them bigger and (b) use them for more then just displaying on a website. — raekyT04:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regardless of size, it does not make me understand what a punt returner is nor how does this guy look like. --Elekhh (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty much per what Elekh said. A Vpicture should be educational and make me want to click and find out more. This doesn't tell me anything. -- bydand•talk00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to oppose this for same reason as I did the FP, it's a building that still exists right? So a better photograph isn't hard to take. — raekyT01:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem to want to push the boundaries of what minimum size I'd vote for? lol. Couple things, (1) Why not File:BarbaraGittings in Phaldelphia 1969.jpg which is bigger and better quality and (2) I'd very much be interested in knowing what the OTRS is on that file, if it's from Kay Tobin Lahusen or the library, if it's from the library does the library possess and have presented us with proof of a full copyright release from Kay Tobin Lahusen? Otherwise it's a copyright violation. — raekyT01:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this one because the people close to the article felt it should be the main image. As I stated before any image greater than 250px wide is sufficient for any use on WP and should be considered for VP. I don't know anything about the OTRS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm checking into the OTRS tickets, so far evidence is pointing to the 3 images on that page are likely copyright violations... — raekyT02:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’d vote the same at FPC because our visiting I.P.s will stop, stare, and click the related link. I think this is outstanding. Greg L (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support. Why not? Seems to meet criteria. Good one. Conditional based on image page being completed and translated into English. --jjron (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This image just doesn't seem educational enough, it's pretty confusing to follow what's actually happening with the puck. -- bydand•talk19:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bydand. It would be much better to illustrate a face-off with a video and I don't think they're particularly good images of Caporusso either as his face is in shadow, so I don't think there's a high enough EV. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Maybe hang it on your wall, but the lighting takes away pretty much all info on the structure, therefore low EV - tells you nothing the daylight image doesn't do 100 times better. Also image page needs to be filled out to even be considered here. --jjron (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pretty much per jjron. It's a nice picture, but isn't particularly informative about the building, or its landscape. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Someone can easily retake this, and it's not the highest quality it can be. What are all the black marks on the image? -- bydand•talk15:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - The Pulaski Skyway, spanning the Passaic River & the Hackensack River, Jersey City, Hudson County, NJ. 1978. Close up view looking obliquely upstream of the cantilever through truss over the Passaic River.
Reason
The image is featured on commons and has a high EV. Great skyway, and an image that portrays it well. Great on the featured article.
Original - Earth and the near-Earth region that is under Earth's gravitational pull are shown, as well as some different sub-regions within it.
Reason
If only this had better labeling of distance it might arguably be feature quality, but other than that it's very educational and shows good scales and keys. It might be underused.
Could be a copyvio: see here. I don't really care too much about this stuff, but without the OTRS tag, I think this may need to go up for deletion. --jjron (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also, his hair is green on the original. I think that captures his character more, that he has the balls to dye his hair green, but it's been edited out on this one. -- bydand•talk19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per what Nev1 said. I'm not sure if he's just smiling so his eyes are shut, but they look shut to me. It's also an awkward angle due to his glasses, and I know it's not cropped, but it looks as if it has been cropped so the top of his head is missing! I just don't feel it satisfies criterion 2. -- bydand•talk19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A contemporary portrait of Galileo is undoubtedly of high EV, but the image is a little small. This is more detailed, and as it's not cropped may be better in some respects. Nev1 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It doesn't show some of the main features of the station such as the main building (isn't that it to the right?) and it's in a gallery. Per criterion 1 of the VP criteria, that means it's not really that valuable. Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Nev1 here. Looks exactly like part of the station in Sheffield where I live, not very educational. -- bydand•talk18:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you take some more pics when the weather is better? And why are there no people in the original? It seems abandoned. --I'ḏ♥One04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Original Horrible crop and small. Given that the original is huge and decently composed, there is no reason this small badly cropped image should be used. — raekyT03:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I agree that the crop is so bad. I believe you have to crop it right of the finger. I agree the original size should be used. I am going to upload a better size with my interpretation of a good crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:David Schwimmer Jul 2005 London, England.jpg theres the original, personally I feel an image shot of someones profile like this needs a fairly big lead room, and yes the finger is distracting, and it was taken when he was talking apparently so not the best facial expression, but it just looks exceedingly odd to my eyes when you chop away all the lead room. My brain wants to see something to the left of his face. — raekyT03:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 1 I added a compromise alt, I cropped it some, and the tiny tip of the distracting finger I cloned away. Still has the paper that is also somewhat distracting, but it has more lead room. — raekyT03:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like any of these, that bald guy is right behind him in all three versions and you can't get rid of him, though I marginally support the original more because it looks framed a little better, would've been nicer centered toward the left without the excessive nose room of alt 1 - oppose all three. --I'ḏ♥One04:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I cropped it a bit more with his ear dividing roughly 1/3 the photo. Some would say the background in all is drab, but I don't mind it. --I'ḏ♥One12:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Carter Woodson Regional Library, the South Regional branch of the Chicago Public Library, is one of two regional libraries in the Chicago Public Library system.
Reason
This is a quality image that benefits several articles
Original - The nave of Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral, the Cathedral Church of the Diocese of Chicago and the Midwest, Orthodox Church in America, Chicago, Illinois looking east toward the iconostasis. Designed by Louis Sullivan, built 1899–1903.
Reason
Image of the interior of the only surviving Louis Sullivan church.
Weak oppose per criterion 1. It's a very good image, and certainly would improve the article, however it's in a gallery, so according to the VP criteria it doesn't make a significant contribution and so does not have particularly high EV. Rearranging the article (perhaps expanding it) would definitely help. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image has what one FP reviewer called an encyclopedic look. This is basically the type of image you would hope or expect to see for this type of individual, IMO.
This is a high EV image with uniquer artistic content. Although it is smallish, it is still large enough that it is shrunk in use on WP, which means for the use we are evaluating its EV for it is abundantly large.
The reason I opposed this is because I personally feel that the image further down in the article portrays him better. (I actually just swapped them) -- bydand•talk18:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but other than the OOF issue which is arguably less of a problem here, I think the other problems identified at FPC are as much an issue here as there (lighting, less than ideal composition). I assume this place still exists and is quite accessible, so I personally don't think it qualifies for VP either as the image should be quite reproducible; if it was no longer in existence it may be a different story. (Sorry for rambling a bit, but just seeing if I can help you understand where VP comes into play; as we've said before, it's not just a poor-man's FP.) --jjron (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I do love this picture & it has great EV for the articles it supplements, but jjron is right--just from a quick Google search there are numerous pictures of the lily pool and some with better context, e.g. [1] or [2]. Being in the Lincoln Park Zoo, this image is readily reproducible and I think because of that it just isn't right for VP. & a comment--I think this image would make a suitable addition to landscape architecture, perhaps in the responsibilities section. Amphy (talk)
Support The quality holds up FP but the guidelines for VP are that "An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.[1]" that is certainly met here.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I already gave my response in the FPC nomination, I don't think this has the best possible EV for the "Lily Pool" since the article talks about a pond with lilies, and this is an image of a structure along side the pond. I think a better photograph can be taken that shows more of the pond. — raeky(talk | edits)08:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had misinterpreted your statement "since we're not worried much about technical issues but more EV issues and slightly blurry doesn't dramatically hurt the EV." 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC) to mean you would suppport at VPC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Directly after that I say, "The only issue I would have there is that the image focuses mostly on the structure and not the pond, and I would consider an image showing more of the pond higher EV since although the structure is a main feature of the lily pool, it is afterall the lily pool the article is about." — raeky(talk | edits)14:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reshot this with my point and shooter this weekend. The sky was hazy and looks blown in most takes. I have two takes that are focused only on the pool with no sky. I will upload momentarily.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support south southeast It is pretty bright, but acceptable. Very pretty place, the kind of garden pond I want at my house some day. ;-) — raekyT19:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Will the reshot photo be added to any articles? As it stands it's only in VPC, but I imagine the SSE shot could easily replace the current picture of the Lily Pool. I think the SSE shot is VP material but I'm reserving my vote until this photo shows up in some articles. Amphy (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Reshoots - The Southeast one is the better of the two, the other one is overlit. I think this structure is probably a difficult one to find a 'correct' angle for a photograph, support original or southeast, oppose east. --I'ḏ♥One04:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose south-southeast version currently. It needs to be rotated counterclockwise. Look at verticals on the structure. If this is fixed I will support. Jujutaculartalk13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm about to close this discussion, and consensus is currently leaning towards supporting the SSE edit. Please ensure that the image is being used in the relevant articles, and that all redlinks on the description page are removed. Edge3 (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted File:20100801 Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool from southsoutheast.JPG --I'ḏ♥One04:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Promoted File:20100801 Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool from southsoutheast-2 cropped.jpg
Conditional Support if you rename the file... 6324640 e65159133a o doesn't tell me anything. Please don't rush finding pictures and putting them here as soon as you can.. -- bydand•talk01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yeah, it looks like something, doesn't it, Fletcher? Weak support because I like the architecture and colors, but I'm not sure a picture of a stairwell has much EV. --I'ḏ♥One04:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. According to the article "The stairwell in the northwest corner is considered to be the buildings most interesting and dynamic artistic feature", so I suppose the image has EV, but that's something that should really be in the nominating statement. What's with the vagueness? It's certainly interesting, but without context I was leaning towards oppose as why would a staircase be important. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good image of the building which helps understand the structure; when it comes to articles on buildings, a picture really is worth a thousand words. Are my eyes going funny, or does it need rotating anti-clockwise slightly? Nev1 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's Galileo. The image portays him perfectly, and I think even more so without cropping to just his face: it captures him better in my opinion. A recent nomination is the cropped, smaller version, and I think it is too small to be a VP, whereas this is just perfect portraying him, especially considering it's from 1636.
Strong Support Great quality, size and its history significance is automatic EV. This should just about be a FP. --I'ḏ♥One04:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original - Michelle Obama is photographed hugging Barack Obama.Alt 1- Michelle Obama has a discussion with Emine Erdoğan, First Lady of Turkey
Reason
I think we should get one or so of her, not sure if we have one now and didn't care for the last nomination to be the 4th or 3.5th vote (her stance is uneven and she looked like she has lazy eye). The alt was Picture of the Day on the Ossetian Wikipedia, created by the White House.
Oppose. I don't see how this has high EV as you say. There are bound to be other pictures of this guy; he's not entirely notable; the picture doesn't tell me much about him. Also, could it do with a crop? -- bydand•talk15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm new to the VP process so please excuse any stupid questions, but what do you mean by "he's not entirely notable"? The article easily passes Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:ATHLETE. Are yousaying that Collins isn't very important so neither is the image? Nev1 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know what I meant by 'not notable', I think I was tired at the time. I just mean why is this picture more valuable than any other picture of him? -- bydand•talk18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would benefit from a tighter crop, to just focus on Collins. All the yellow in the background is very distracting, as are the players on the left. A crop doesn't need to remove Collins' action, just the extraneous parts of the image. It might end up a tad on the small size with a good crop though, which might mean a better image could be found. Canada Hky (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-LLNL.jpg)
-LLNL-restored.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_2_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
![[1]](http://www.explorechicago.org/etc/medialib/explore_chicago/park_district/alfred_caldwell_lily.Par.31902.Image.0.0.1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/13/19204342_d50e0bd2b7_o.jpg){kind=link}
