Wikipedia:Picture peer review/San Jacinto Battleground at sunrise

San Jacinto Battleground at dawn


I think that this is a very impressive image. EV is there with its appearance in Houston, USS Texas (BB-35), San Jacinto Monument, Houston Ship Channel, and San Jacinto Battleground State Historic Site. I am very open to a better name and/or caption for this...


 * Creator:


 * Nominated by: — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Shouldn't a FP/VP image of dawn be from the golden hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my fault; this should be moved to "at sunrise"... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No worries, sorry, I was probably a bit grumpy at the time. --jjron (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment - I was thinking that it would be similar to this... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Seconder:

