UESPWiki:Featured Images/Past Nominations

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of past nominations for Featured Images.

Page Archives

{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 1|2=|3=Apr-Jun 2011 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 2|2=|3=Jun 2011-Oct 2012 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 3|2=|3=Nov 2012-Jun 2013 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 4|2=|3=July 2013-Dec 2013 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 5|2=|3=Dec 2013-Nov 2014 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 6|2=|3=Dec 2014-Aug 2015 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 7|2=|3=Sep 2015-Aug 2018 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 8|2=|3=Aug 2018-Jul 2020 }}{{Template:FULLPAGENAME0/Line|1=Archive 9|2=|3=Aug 2020-Jun 2022 }}

File:SR-npc-Rulnik Wind-Strider.jpg[edit]

SR-npc-Rulnik Wind-Strider.jpg

Nothing striking but this is a clear, well-lit NPC screenshot for Skyrim AE with a scenic background. Great to see this kind of quality still present in an older namespace.

  • Support: As nominator. —⁠Legoless (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: An unimportant NPC, in a neutral pose, against an uninteresting background. Not a lot to recommend. 173.49.208.25 04:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It's a nice image, but there's nothing that makes it stand out as exemplary. On one hand, I'm not opposed to the idea of putting a good image that meets our standards to a T on display. On the other hand, it doesn't give me Feelings. It meets all of my expectations for an NPC image, but it doesn't make me say "woah" or "what a [insert adjective relevant to the mood of the shot here] composition". When I see this shot, I merely think "this is a good NPC image". I'm quite torn because I'm a sucker for good NPC images, and I wouldn't mind showing off something that embodies the essence of a good, clear shot (the lighting in particular is wonderful, showing us all the color of the scene unmarred, without altering the mood or obscuring the subject), but he is just standing there in a neutral pose. -MolagBallet (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A combination of the above sentiments; though it's relatively well lit and decently readable, the idle A-pose is very uninteresting. If the character was instead caught mid-animation, it would bring a bit more intrigue. Alternatively, taking the image with a lower angle, to make the character look more imposing. A lower angle would also allow the legs to blend in less with the ground floor— the brown-heavy foreground would be remedied by bringing out more of the blues/greens in the distant mid/background. —- Ingura (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No wow factor. I do appreciate Creation Club documentation however.Zebendal (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose. 3 - 1 —⁠Legoless (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

File:ON-npc-Dosu-Zeeus.jpg[edit]

ON-npc-Dosu-Zeeus.jpg

I may be a bit biased, as the current rendition was edited by me, but this image of Dosu-Zeeus looks fairly nice. Of all the NPCs I've taken in the zone, her idle animation makes her really stick out, and editing the image was a blast. It's also relatively well-lit, even before it was processed— taking good pictures in the Greymoor Caverns can be hard due to how dark it can be there.

  • Support: As nominator. —- Ingura (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It looks a bit blurry to me? —⁠Legoless (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Leagues better than what I took on my old hardware, but it's a bit blurry and the lighting overall is rather dark. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment: The blur was a consequence of anti-aliasing combined with lower sampling rate and bloom. I've reshot it, though the color balancing is fairly different now (as is the nature of editing in post). The shadows in the area are naturally dark, and in-game Dosu-Zeeus is spot-lit to be light at top and dark at bottom. Editing the values to be brighter leads to it looking washed out, so I brightened the focal point (waist-up) to make the details pop and her stand out from the background. Ultimately, though, I can ramp up the lighting overall, if that's preferred by the wiki. —- Ingura (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Image was replaced mid-nomination -Damon talkedits 14:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral: The lighting on the character is super cool but the background kind of ruins it for me. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Oppose. 3 - 1 —⁠Legoless (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


File:AR-npc-Smith.jpg[edit]

AR-npc-Smith.jpg

A striking retro image, recently improved for Lore:Smithing. The recent reupload is a serious improvement on the old version in terms of crop and resolution. This is the kind if quality I'd love to see for Arena screenshots.

  • Support: As nominator. —⁠Legoless (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Lets have some Arena stuff featured. Looks nice.--Talyyn (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree. It's always nice to see a proper, good quality screenshot from older games. Adds more variety to featured images.Tyrvarion (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: buff man, quite popular with fans The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: This is a great shot, I agree with that.Zebendal (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I can't believe this image isn't in 4K quality with the highest possible graphics an RTX 4000 series is capable of! Oh wait... Schiffy(Talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I love this image! Yes, let's show some love to Arena. Theolaa (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Unanimous —⁠Legoless (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

File:ON-place-Nobles District 02.jpg[edit]

ON-place-Nobles District 02.jpg

Dark Anchors are incredible focal points, and the Imperial City is not immune to that fact. Your eyes are drawn to the bright light imposed upon the dark frame, then down the neck of the Tower towards the devastation below. I think one way this could be improved is by taking a similar shot in another district, particularly one where Daedric Titans are visibly circling the Tower.

  • Support: As nominator. -MolagBallet (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: While this is indeed a good shot, I find it very similar in composition and coloring to The Mooring image nominated above. Makes me feel like I have to pick one or the other if I want to support one. — Wolfborn(Howl) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Croaker (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Hard to say no to a shot of White-Gold Tower The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic quality and subject. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: Absolutely adore this shot. The only way it could look cooler is if the shot was taken a bit closer, so the pillar looks like it's penetrating the anchor's center. A slight counter-clockwise pan would also frame it better, as the gap in the buildings on the right is large enough to make the shot look a bit lopsided. —- Ingura (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: Support. Unanimous Robin Hood(talk) 02:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

File:ON-interior-The Mooring.jpg[edit]

ON-interior-The Mooring.jpg

Because I cannot be stopped, I will be nominating more images. The framing on this shot is spectacular; I always stop to look at it whenever I pass it by.

  • Support: As nominator. -MolagBallet (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: While this is indeed a good shot, I find it very similar in composition and coloring to the Nobles District image nominated below. Makes me feel like I have to pick one or the other if I want to support one. — Wolfborn(Howl) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Wolfborn. Too similar to the Nobles District image, and I prefer the Nobles District image. Croaker (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Great shot The Rim of the Sky (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic quality and subject. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 16:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I share similar sentiments to Wolfborn. A very slight nitpick is the fact that it's not perfectly symmetrical— the chain bases at the sides of the frame are neither evenly cropped nor level with one another, and the central spires aren't symmetrical. (I will admit that the latter part is not necessarily a failing of the photographer, but its asymmetry would look better were everything else symmetrical.) If the camera angle were panned a bit more counter-clockwise, it would improve the framing by a decent margin. My eyes immediately gravitate to the obtuse angle made by the chains coming from the right base, and would love it shared with the other side or omitted entirely. —- Ingura (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus: None. 2-3 Robin Hood(talk) 02:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)