Wikipedia:Picture peer review/File:Lake George Florida.JPG

Lake George (Florida)


I like it. Yes, yes, WP:ILIKEIT and all, but I know what I like.


 * Articles this image appears in:St. Johns River


 * Creator:Moni3


 * Nominated by: Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Thanks for nominating here. While this image is quite nicely done, the problem images like this tend to have at FPC is that while we believe you that this is Lake George, Florida, it quite frankly could be anywhere. We've got water, we've got sky, and we've got a distant horizon. There's no landmarks or anything to make it specific to this place. Also I don't see why it's only used in St. Johns River while Lake George (Florida) remains imageless. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I recently added more than 65K of cited text to the St. Johns River article and I'm not done yet. I can add more to Lake George, including an image, but one article at a time. I'm not sure what to say about the lake not being identifiable. --Moni3 (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's great that you are making substantial improvements. From time I make significant improvements to things like articles on rivers as well, and often upload a number of images to go with it. Most of the time I don't even consider nominating them for FP even when high quality, essentially for the reasons I've given you. Some users tend to focus on harvesting FPs and nominate virtually everything they upload while making few improvements to articles, but I think it's more important to improve articles in general, not just seek out FPs. In a roundabout way, my point being that it sounds like you're doing valuable work, but doing that work doesn't in itself lead to an FP, if you get what I mean. --jjron (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Is it possible at all to get an image promoted to FP that shows a large land or waterform such as this that is not as iconic as say, the St. Louis Arch? Would there by any image of Lake George that would get promoted if most pictures looked like a flat surface of water with trees miles in the distance? There aren't too many (or any) landmarks to identify the lake. I'm trying to draw attention to it and the river. And plus...the picture freakin' rules. I can't believe I got it. I've been slogging through marshes and riverbanks for days here. Give me some love. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO given what you've said and prior experience, I'd be inclined to say 'no'. You've also got the issue of technical quality here, which isn't that good (a side effect of the camera, although it appears that this may have been downsampled as well, perhaps too much). But don't just take my word for; I'm just one opinion, and there's nothing stopping you from nominating at FPC to get more. And whether promoted or not, being on FPC for a week and then in the archives will at least get you a bit more attention than it will get here :-). --jjron (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You've also got the issue of technical quality here, which isn't that good (a side effect of the camera, although it appears that this may have been downsampled as well, perhaps too much). That looks like English, but the words in that order don't make sense to me. I had to look up downsampling, which I take to mean reduce in pixel size. I did not alter the image this way. I brought out some blue and green tones in the highlights and shadows, but not by more than ten points. I did not change the image size. So are you suggesting I nominate the image for FPC to give it and the article more attention? --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, FPC is very much about technical quality, perhaps too much at times - see the Criteria. To get to the point images taken with anything less than a DSLR tend to have a hard time these days, and while you haven't used a bad camera, this is still clearly taken with a compact. The occasional photo from a compact gets through, but that's becoming increasingly less common. Re the downsampling, from the image page this is 2,112 × 2,816 pixels, & 860 KB. For a 6megapixel image 860kb is quite a small filesize to maintain maximum quality. I was guessing you may have downsampled which may have cost you quality, but given the subject matter this size is possible I suppose, and it's also possible that any downsampling was done 'for you' by the camera. Anyway, as I said above, putting it up at FPC will get it more attention, and you are free to do so, but as greenj has now corroborated this is unlikely to meet with much success - whether you're of the 'any publicity is good publicity' school of thought or not may dictate which way you go. I would suggest it would meet with a similar reaction to the current nom Red Deer in Longford River. --jjron (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I offer a fresh opinion? I'd suggest that you look at these featured pictures of lakes. In all of these, the pictures significantly add to their articles in a way words can't: they illustrate surroundings, textures, what's in the lake, etc. Of those, the last one is probably closest to what your lake looks like (rather undistinguished), but even that has a convincing composition to benefit it (although I'd bet it would struggle at FPC by today's standards). Voters at FPC are looking for good illustrations; one that just shows sky and water isn't going to cut it for them. Its minimalist composition is different (reminds me of No Line on the Horizon) from what we normally see at WP, it won't count much for it at FPC. Thegreenj 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconder:

