Talk:North Reef Light

A fact from North Reef Light appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that, at 24 metres (79 ft) and 6 metres (20 ft) respectively, North Reef Light and Flat Top Island Light (plans shown in scale) are the tallest and the shortest of Queensland's timber-framed iron clad lighthouses?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

Wikipedia

Australia: Queensland / Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal North Reef Light is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Lighthouses Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Main page

Congratulations of your DYK!
Concerning the two original sections and elevations of the lighthouse, the original condition of each is very much to be preferred to the two digital enhancements which have upped the colours to nasty yellow and nasty pink, revealing the irregularites in the lighting when they were photgraphed and turning the peice of cellotape into an unidentifiable smear. The unenhanced pictures are a much more accurate image of the plans and such original primary evidence ought to be allowed to stand unaltered. Automatic colour enhancement almost never retains the quality of the original.
On the other hand, if you are sufficiently skilled at computer graphics and have the right, you can extract, from a tatty old original, a clear, sharp black and white image of the type that might be used in a page of text in a book. I'm defintiely not suggesting that you replace the present image with a linear black and white one, but that in some contexts, such an is very useful.

Please go with the original rather than adjusted version, and clearly label the altered image as altered. The file name itself, not just the description, should have the words "altered" or "digitally adjusted" in the file name, so that no thinks the original actually looks like that. (I'm primarily an art and architecture editor.) Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not add "altered" to images which I did not alter. Both images come from the National Archives of Australia and reflect their choices. I used as description exactly what they give as description. I have no idea which of them is the original, and I chose the one which looked better to me, but not being an architect this was an aesthetic choice rather than a professional one. If you feel the other is more suitable, feel free to replace it. --Muhandes (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]