Talk:Yamaha YZF-R3
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yamaha YZF-R3 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Photoshopped image
editWhy edited images are prohibited? The blue one found on commons, clearly represents the current generation of the bike better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.190.242 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- We've avoided photoshoppped images for several years now. They are poor illustrations for several reasons, such as that they destroy any sense of scale. Not all motorcycles are the same size. When you white out the background, the context is gone and the image floats in space with no sense of that the bike is actually like. Doctored or retouched images might be OK for diagrams that illustrate a general concept, like how do gears work? Or what is a motorcycle? But not when you're trying to illustrate something specific, in this case a specific model. Even aside from avoiding doctored images, File:Yamaha YZF-R3 2020 Icon Blue.png is particularly undesirable. The resolution is extremely low, the cutting around the edges of the bike is clumsy and amateurish, leaving a distracting jagged edge that makes understanding what the bike looks like even harder. We can't tell what is the shape of the bike and what is the hamfisted selection. Even if we had the original, unphotoshppoed image, the quality is terrible. It's low-contrast, the colors are washed out and not faithful to the actual bike.
Further information is at MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, WP:CARPIX, and WP:MCPIX. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Blue.png is particularly undesirable. The resolution is extremely low, the cutting around the edges of the bike is clumsy and amateurish, leaving a distracting jagged edge that makes understanding what the bike looks like even harder. We can't tell what is the shape of the bike and what is the hamfisted selection. Even if we had the original, unphotoshppoed image, the quality is terrible. It's low-contrast, the colors are washed out and not faithful to the actual bike. Further information is at MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, WP:CARPIX, an 2001:56A:FA9B:800:4C49:ABC7:8505:F03B (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)