Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives
/archive 1 /archive 2

Contents

[edit] I've made two minor changes...

I've added a note to "Is neutral" clarifying what is the actual policy in operation: Historical images that advocate a historically-sigificant point of view or agenda may be highly encyclopaedic for articles on those points of view or agendas, and regularly pass FPC.

I also added a link to commons:Help:Scanning, to help give advice for preparing images. Remove it if you like. 13:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historic exceptions: wording

On the FPC talk page, Durova suggested we clarify the historical documents exception for resolution on the criteria. I don't know too much about printing, but the general idea I get is that people are willing to have historic documents be less than 1000 pixels on a side, and much more willing to promote historic documents that are at or just over 1000 pixels on a side, but people are unwilling to promote even historical images that would not look good printed. Because of this, I suggest that historic exception bullet point for Resolution (requirement #2) be merged with the pixel size bullet point, so the requirement to be printable is no longer modified by the historic exception.

As far as requirement #1, I think that it was previously clear and now [1] is a little bit too long. What do other people think? - Enuja (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8. Is Neutral - just delete?

I'm not entirely convinced that we need a featured picture criteria point to say that images are neutral. Generally, I think images don't need to be neutral, they just need to be to used in a neutral way. There is probably not a neutral way to use a non-neutral map, so a non-neutral map therefore can't meet "5. Adds value to the article." Any images that shouldn't be promoted because of neutrality issues already shouldn't be promoted because of encyclopedic issues, so I think that we should remove criteria number eight to prevent instruction creep. - Enuja (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in it is at all useful as a hard-and-fast rule. The fact is, we break it all the damn time, and the only possible use it might have is when talking about user-made works. And what it tries to say would be better and more precisely said as "user-made diagrams and maps must strive for accuracy and must not violate WP:FRINGE". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that we should delete the requirement? I'm not sure if you're suggesting new language to replace it or to be put into a different point, or if you'd also like to see it go. - Enuja (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it should go. It MAY be useful to mention accuracy in user-made works somewhere in passing, but as a whole, it should go. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I've never seen any image not promoted solely because of this issue and the only times it's been cited were (pitiful) attempts at political correctness. Images are generally only as POV as their captions. The only case where it might be applicable is, as stated above, in user-created maps. Heaven forbid we don't see a map of Liancourt Rocks, certain Balkan regions, or anything else that may be subject to arbcom sanctions. MER-C 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its a waste of space, especially with #6 and #7 covering similar ground. Get rid. --mikaultalk 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
True, my eyes glazed over point 6, meaning that the only cases I could see that point 8 would be significant would be if, say, a user-created (or PR-firm created, I guess) diagram entitled "Why intelligent design/reflexology/flat earth/conspiracy theory X is true!" using fringe sources. And, if that really needs to be said - (I don't think it does unless all the denizens of WP:FPC suddenly lost 50 points of intelligence) - it could be stated in point 5 with more clarity. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
It can go. I don't think I've ever used it as a reason myself to oppose or support, and have rarely (if ever) seen anyone else successfully use it. If anyone's concerned about people sneaking things in, maybe #6 could be made Is accurate and neutral just in case? --jjron (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I done did it, and I didn't add any extra language into #6. I really think "contributes" and "accurate" together really cover this one. If we need to add language to another point, let's keep it as concise as possible. - Enuja (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about a couple things here. First, that this went from discussion to implementation with only four people contributing and in one day. "Be bold" applies to article editing, but I don't think it does (or should) apply to significant changes to policy. I really think there should be more discussion on this before a criterion is struck.
Second, there are good reasons for the neutrality criterion w/r/t featured pictures that were missed completely in your brief discussion above, and they have nothing to do with "political correctness." Essentially, you want to sidestep the neutrality requirement by pointing out that non-neutral images can be used in a neutral context, based on how they're used in a particular article or articles. But images exist independently of articles, and just because an image is on a particular article now does not mean it will be used on that same article tomorrow or next week. This might happen for entirely good reasons - maybe the article content is edited or improved, and the image is no longer entirely appropriate, or maybe an image better-suited to the article will replace the existing one. What you have then is a non-neutral image that has endorsement (featured status) totally devoid of the context that makes it "acceptable" as such.
I'd also like to point out that featured pictures are, by the very fact of their featured status, inserted into various pages in Wikipedia devoid of the context of the article(s) that make their non-neutrality 'okay.' To pick one of many examples, they are placed on the front page, devoid of the full context that supports them in the article. True, they get a short summary that might help explain the context -- but it's possible that a short summary will be inadequate to provide proper context. A more troubling example are the pages that simply list all the featured pictures by category or by promotion date, which (by design) lack any context for the images. Somebody browsing those pages without reading each of the articles the picture is used in might come across one of these non-neutral images and (quite understandably, IMO) wonder why Wikipedia would feature something non-neutral and/or patently offensive. Nevermind the question of whether the image is used neutrally in an article that sets the context for its use. Somebody browsing featured images (as I have done many times, especially before I had an account here) just for the sake of viewing the images won't have the 'benefit' of the context given in an article.
If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia, neutrality must be taken seriously, and even the appearance of non-neutrality must be considered. That's quite applicable here. -- Moondigger (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I must say I wasn't surprised to see this criterion gone when I logged on this morning. Four (actually five, if you look back) fairly unanimous posts is way more consensus than changes normally get here... I'm not sure when the neutrality clause came in, but it was certainly before similar issues were addressed in related criteria. For example, #7 was updated very recently to clarify the need for contextual captioning of FPCs, and (as jjron suggests) there is scope for amplifying the call at #6 for objective (or even verifiable) support for image content at description-page level, if the subject matter is controversial or whatever. However the link to example subject matter at #3 is another possible area for elaboration, one that is also linkable from #6.
I'd say this was a case of demonstrating that a real problem exists first, and according it the weight that problem merits in these guidelines. If we start chasing what-if scenarios with over-elaborate criteria we open a Pandora's box of rule creep, as evidenced with #1 the other day. --mikaultalk 12:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this might be worth re-including as a note on criterion 6. It's applicable so rarely that it doesn't need to be a whole criterion on its own, but if it does apply it might be quite important; for example if someone were to draw a map of Israel and Palestine and include only one side's views of where the borders lie.
It is sufficient for neutrality for an image to be accurate in what it claims to portray, however. A historical diagram portraying, say, an outdated view of racial origins, or a map showing the Japanese claims to Sakhalin Island, would be fine as long as it did not claim to portray any more than those opinions. TSP (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Moondigger, I do normally wait longer to implement changes, but this appears to be a bit of an open season on the criteria. I figured that I should jump in and change things now, when a large number of people's attention is on the criteria individually and as a whole, so that, in the end, we get as much imput as possible from as many people as possible, and so that people are editing the criteria as a whole, together. I do understand that it might be better to edit some of the other criteria because of this change, and since the other criteria are in active flux as well right now, I thought that flux should include the input that the neutrality bullet point is very likely to be missing.
Do you think that the American WWII poster with anti-Japanese sentiment should not have been promoted as a featured picture? - Enuja (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally located the relevant policy for NOR in images, and linked to it in #6. Hopefully this will address concerns about the removal of the neutrality criterion. If any more clarification is needed, I'd suggest a footnote using text from the poilcy: and example like Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader might be useful. Or completely unnecessary, depending on your POV ;o) --mikaultalk 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panoramas

I added a size remark about panoramas - we've seen some with a height of some 400 px or so, and that's just too small... --Janke | Talk 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely worth a mention, although past discussions have failed to come up with a consensus on the preferred minimum so it's always been left out. I've always argued for a minimum height, because there is no standard panoramic format, hence width is a poor indicator. So why not mention height as the indicator in the criterion? --mikaultalk 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My personal feeling on it (and I mean this with respect to my own panos) is that they should reach the 'minimum' in the short dimension. In other words, for most panos they should be a minimum 1,000px in height. My only concern with putting this in the criteria is that people argue against images 'on size' when they are right on or just over the minimum - this isn't valid, but it is done regularly. Thus if we made this a criteria, they'd be jumping on panos 1,000px in height and claiming them as too small. Personally I don't want to 'give away' my panos at much more than this (I often go to about 1,200px), and I think many other contributors feel the same way. --jjron (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm against an absolute measure. The general quality of the image will what to decide upon. --Janke | Talk 18:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
But the same logic behind the standard image format minimum applies equally here, even if I do kind of share your misgivings about it. Other considerations aside for the moment, it's partly a question of resolution being enough to display an image full-screen. It might be that it's important that FPs are suitable as a wallpaper or desktop image, but for me, full-screen is the ideal display size for appreciating the vast majority of images. Personally (FPC criteria notwithstanding) I'll normally mark down a FPC which can't fill my screen (even if that does make me slightly biased against some portrait-orientated stuff...) and get annoyed by overly-large images which I have to download to appreciate at screen size. Scrolling a pano which is waay taller than my screen is almost as frustrating as not being able to make out detail in a 400px one.
If I may be permitted to waffle on a bit more, the lovely thing about a full-height pano is that on-screen scrolling is like panning around the original scene, just like viewing macros should be like holding a magnifying glass over a specimen. I'd be much happier if our size criteria were based on practical viewing considerations like that, rather than enforce arbitrary dimensions with more than half an eye on print repro size. But for consistency's sake, if we do stipulate minima for standard formats, we're bound do the same for panoramas. --mikaultalk 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd pretty much agree entirely with that. The resolution thing is oversold (I've seen votes recently where the sole reason for supporting - and even nominating - is something like "huge resolution"). I rather view a pano at roughly screen height - another reason for my aiming at around 1000px in height. And searching through any huge image, pano or not, is usually more frustrating than rewarding. I often wonder where the 1000px requirement came from, it was certainly here before I was, and is often applied too readily IMO. Having said which, I don't really understand Janke's "I'm against an absolute measure...etc" statement, especially as he started this discussion, he's almost arguing against himself; the "general quality" may well be good enough at 400px, so why bring it up? If nothing else the current 1000px gives an objective starting point for regular images. Just waffling on in some vague way about them having to be 'big enough' or 'not too small' is pointless and will get no outcome. Stating a minimum at least gives you a solid baseline from which to begin. --jjron (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not arguing against myself... at least I try not to! ;-) It all depends on the subject. A flagpole can be 10,000 px high, and only 200 px wide, and have enough resolution. If you hate vertical panos, then imagine some other subject... But I hope you see why I may say that in some cases 400 px is not enough, while it may be in other. So, it's the "general quality" that will decide my vote, as I said. --Janke | Talk 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Coming in a bit late in the discussion, I do think that 400px is probably a bit low for most panoramas, but as others have mentioned, it really depends on the subject. Like Jjron, I'm loathe to upload full resolution these days (although still uploading at a res that is clearly of marketable size, at least I can reserve my absolute highest quality image for unrestricted commercial use). Recently, I uploaded the panorama of Tower Bridge and the Thames which was (from memory) 2500 by 950ish. It was slightly below the 1000px mark that was discussed, but I think it was sufficient given the sharpness, as it was downsampled so significantly. I do think that around 1000px height is a pretty good ballpark figure for panoramas, since we use 1000px as a minimum dimension and panoramas are typically multiple photos that have been stitched horizontally, so you would expect them to be just as detailed as a single image in the vertical dimension.We should be realistic, though, if the content does not warrant ultra-high definition. A flagpole is a pretty good example of that (but I can't imagine one being featured - what makes one flagpole stand out among other flagpoles!?). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animations

Whilst on the subject of image size, has anyone got any suggestions for animations? At the moment Criteria 2 just says "Animated images are generally much smaller." (i.e., than the 1,000px minimum for stills). Should a size be given, even say 500px? At the moment we're seeing an 'anything goes' situation, where apparently animations at 200 or 300px are perfectly acceptable (e.g., this recent nom). Seems a bit unfair. --jjron (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to make a hard-and-fast rule, because an animation or video with a very large number of frames may HAVE to be smaller than one with only a few, due to the 20 meg limit on uploads, if nothing else. How about a guideline of about 700px instead of an absolute rule? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm against an absolute measure. The general quality of the image will what to decide upon. Some animations only need to be 100 px, others may need 500, or more. --Janke | Talk 18:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrasing, though, has to change. "Animations are generally much smaller" is awful phrasing. "Although animations may be of smaller size than this." would be better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm maybe a bit biased as I'm not much of a fan of animations and videos (slow to load, awkward to use, seem awfully prone to error, and limited applications beyond the webpage), but I still see it as a somewhat unfair with such differing size requirements. And as I write at least two more videos with resolutions of 320×240 pixels are soon to be promoted (1, 2). Agree with Shoemaker that at least that awful wording should be improved. --jjron (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] colour/exposure "correction" is getting out of hand

I really think the wording about digital manipulation needs to be strengthened. We are now routinely promoting images that are severely over-processed and unrealistic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel magazine, the images we feature should be as documentary as possible, not "perfect" eye-popping images (which unfortunately are the norm in the photography world right now). Can we add some kind of wording discouraging excessive "correction"/manipulation? As HDR becomes increasingly popular in the ampro world, this is going to become even more of a problem. Practices such as blending multiple exposures and over-saturating colors should be more discouraged in our criteria. Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote as you'd like, but it's going to be difficult to convince me that Diliff's Colosseum shot is anything but superb. If you don't like other-worldly dusk lighting and yellow artificial lights, you may oppose all images taken during dawn and dusk, but I happen to like them. The kayaking image has two versions, and the current version is actually less color saturated than the first version. I think it is a misuse of criteria to try to slant the images towards the type of images you happen to like. If it's about preference, let it be about votes. If it's about technical quality, then, sure, we can have criteria, but I think, if anything, the criteria should be simpler than they currently are. - Enuja (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the problem here is that Kaldari considers anything other than bog standard lighting conditions and completely unedited photos straight out of the camera as being overprocessed, as per our discussions in various nominations and on my talk page. I agree completely with him that genuinely overprocessed images have no place in an encyclopaedia, as they misrepresent reality to a great extent, but I don't think we see eye to eye on what constitutes overprocessing. I go to great lengths to make sure my processing of images is not overbearing and of course such things will always be open to interpretation, but it certainly isn't something I pay little attention to. In the case of that Colosseum photo, from memory there was very little processing done at all. The existing lighting did all the work for me.
Kaldari, I ask you, what exactly prohibits the Colosseum image from being 'documentary'? Can you provide any specific evidence about what is so unreal about it? I doubt you can, because you weren't there and you have no idea if the scene is accurate or not. You're just using your intuition and while that probably serves you well most of the time, it isn't infallible, and it has let you down twice recently (the Trevi Fountain photo, which you assumed was from HDRI and arguably, regarding the colosseum photo). In the end, when I press you about why it must be false or overprocessed, the only arguments that I cannot refute are the ones that are so subjective, it comes down to opinion/faith, in much the same way that belief in the existence of a god comes down to faith. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Colosseum picture looks unrealistic because of the sky. I've never seen a sky that looks that color in real life, but maybe the skies in Europe are weird :) I know for a fact that the kayaking picture is oversaturated because if you look at the original the guy's skin is glowing red. When I brought it to the photographer's attention, he tweaked the skintones to something more believable but left the rest of it as is. Anyway, I suppose you're right. It does come down to personal subjective opinion. My eyeballs just don't like pictures that I can tell are manipulated. While Diliff's opinion is that some manipulation is fine, which I agree with, his threshold is obviously a lot higher than mine. I guess I'm just amazed that most of the people voting on images here don't prefer more realistic coloring and saturation for photographs in Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I assure you, the sky is accurate in that photo, I even went back to the raw files to have a look and no processing has been involved whatsoever. Have you never seen twilight before, where the sky is a deep blue (hah, coincidentally the colosseum photo has been added to the article as an example. I wasn't aware)? It is an extremely popular time for photography specifically because of the lighting conditions. As I mentioned before, I do think you need to question your eyeballs occasionally, as they just don't seem capable of determining accuracy every time. ;-) I don't think it is just my threshold, because nobody else has ever questioned the accuracy of the colour in my images to the extent you have. Thats okay though, as I like a good challenge every now and then, and I feel confident that, with few exceptions where my processing has been incorrect (in which case I will gladly go back and try to do a better job), I have nothing to feel guilty about. That said, I think you are absolutely right about the skin tone on that kayaker. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Colosseum pic is very good indeed. I question your reluctance to endorse pictures which look abnormal. If a picture is unrealistic in the sense that it represents something which exists only in the creator's imagination, then I agree that it has no place in an encyclopaedia. If it illustrates in a non-deceptive manner something which is relevant to an article, then I believe that it is appropriate, even if it does this through an unconventional way. I agree that digital manipulation which is deceptive should be discouraged. However, manipulation in and of itself is not a bad thing. For example, most good astrophotographic images on here will have been extensively manipulated, to the extent that they comprise the composition of not just different exposures, but different exposures of different wavelength spectra.
Similarly, the fact that something rarely visible in the way it is portrayed in an image is not in and of itself a bad thing. I give you, for example, photographs of cutaway models, photographs taken through telescopes, photographs taken of things which have ceased to exist, etc. For what it's worth, the sky looks so blue because of the colour temperature contrast with the sodium vapour architectural lights. Alternatively, you could just be using a cheap monitor which oversaturates colours to appeal to consumers in a supermarket.Arpitt (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 5 - adds value to an article

Hi, I am pretty new in the WP:FPC circuitry (less so on COM:FPC). After having observed the process for some time and also trying to nominate a few candidates, I have started to wonder if criterion 5 always does good? If I understand the way this criterion is reinforced in practical terms, the image has to add value to an existing article, right?

Images are often forced into an article by the nominator shortly after upload and shorlty before nomination at FPC. As I see it this is sometimes done just such that it can be nominated. One use case is for images illustrating an encyclopedivcally valuable subject for which there is not yet a suitable article. As a consequence the image is pushed into some other article where the image is of marginal relevance just such that it can be nominated.

Sometimes an illustrator or photographer has EV FP featurable material for which there is not yet an article. Why not change this crierion such that it is evaluated if it has encyclopedic value irrespective of whether it currently is in use in an existing article. In the nomination, suggestons could be given as to which subjects the nominee are relevant for. If is promoted it would then be relevant to perhaps replace some existing images in existing articles. In this manner you can also upload and nominate (which is the most motivating process) without having to wait for stabilization of article content.

As an example of what this could be about, I recently had this FPC and assume for a moment that it is a good and valuable illustrations of the lichen family Teloscistaceae for which there is not yet a Wikipedia article. With more than 100 known species of this family of lichen I would say that the existance of such an article would be of relevance. It just has not been written yet. (It is not that I want to change the rule just to get my stuff nominated, it is just an example.)

As the crierion is now, I find it reactive, the good illustrations comes after the articles. Why not turn it into a more proactive citerion promoting featured pictures telling editors: Hey we have some fantastic high EV images, why not write some relevant articles about the subject? In this manner we can also avoid the selfish image pushing prior to nomination into articles. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating a new article as stub when this issue comes up. If it is a large, important group of organisms, then an image on a brand-new stubby little article is really quite encyclopedic all on its own. In my opinion. So I don't see this as a problem. - Enuja (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You have agood point, but my problem is that I am not a native writer and I hesitate to contaminate this well-written English encyclopedia with my poor school English. Recently, when I have made some observations about an article or suggestions I am now consistently raising the issue on the talk page of an existing article as an observation/suggestion for the relevant capable editors. Images do not speak a language, which is one of the reasons why there are quite some non-native speakers are in the image forums at EN. I have the feeling that other non-native image creators feel the same way. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Slaunger: The English language in your note above proves that you can write any stub you need to! I consider criterion 5 very important, after all, this is an encyclopedia. Photographers needing a little "ego-boost" can always put their shots on Commons... ;-) --Janke | Talk 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
He, he, yes on Commons you can upload and then nominate, but I do not see a parallel to ego-boosting in that, it is just a more light-weight and less tedious process. But no big deal, I sense most WP:FPC regulars finds the current criteria 5 fine as it is, and then I think it should be kept that way. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "not intended to deceive"

I want to suggest a change to criterion #8. I don't like the phrase "not intended to deceive". Who cares about the creator's intentions? The best intentions can result in a deceptive image. I think it should simply read "not deceptive". I know there was a lot of debate before this criterion was added which is why I bring up the issue here before making any changes. I hope I'm not being too legalistic but the current wording irks me. --D. Monack | talk 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not hearing any objections, I made the change. --D. Monack | talk 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria #8 again - Captions

Just noticed that the criteria still includes the requirement of a full caption. I don't think consensus has really been sought to the extent that would be needed to remove it from the criteria (last time it was mentioned was over a year ago, and that fizzled out without much debate. From what I've read previously though, it is generally agreed that providing an extended and appropriate caption is a good idea, but not mandatory (and therefore probably shouldn't be a criteria, lest those who take it gospel might oppose on that basis alone). Obviously I'm not suggesting we be lazy and make captions Somebody Else's Problem. It should probably remain as part of the nomination creation process as a recommendation. I'm just saying that it isn't always the nominator that is the best person to provide one, and those in charge of POTD such as Howcheng are generally very experienced and adept in cobbling up one. Of course, if the nomination fails because of the lack of a caption, it will never reach them, which is unfortunate and bureacratic.

What say you? Is a caption necessary for all nominations? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think at minimum we should have a caption that explains what we're looking at and which points out various details in the image. Any more than that is really out of the scope of FPC. howcheng {chat} 16:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally we can copy and paste from an article for that. Sometimes that caption may be ready for POTD as it is I suppose, but it would be quite rare. We could just word the FPC nomination process differently to put more importance on a valid basic caption instead. So if we're agreed on that point, would you support removing #8? The fact that its a criteria implies it is mandatory. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would support rewording #8 to make sure that it's the nominator's responsibility to tell us the salient details, but I would argue against eliminating it. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about NPOV?

Execution of Mussolini (1945).ogg
Example of an image (video, in this case) that is not POV

There's nothing in the criteria demanding a picture to be NPOV -- taking the phrasing from WP:WIAFA, demanding that it "presents views fairly and without bias". I came here because of the FPC nomination of Image:Execution of Mussolini (1945).ogg (right), which in my opinion should not be promoted because it presents a very slanted view on the subject. Shouldn't we add an NPOV criterion? Kane5187 (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The caption should be NPOV. A picture is just something that happened, it has no POV, it is easily the most neutral thing on Wikipedia. Regarding the video in this case, it happened, exactly as shown, the where, why, how, who and what are up to the article. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No, pictures are not NPOV. Ericd (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluating non-photographic entries

Evaluating photographs is fairly straight forward: focus, lighting, composition, etc are all determined at the time the photograph was taken (more or less).

I find it nearly impossible to evaluate pictures of artwork, and as such, generally abstain. I have no idea what this or especailly this even is, let alone if it is worth featuring.

Any insight would be helpful.

Thanks,

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all very subjective and largely obfuscated by expert evaluation. One one level, your photographic expertise is only tangentally useful in establishing the encyclopedic value of a photograph, and the same is true of fine-art savvy for paintings and engravings; on another, you don't need to be an art critic to say you find an image utterly compelling or profoundly dull, and your opinion will still count the same as the next guy. Occasionally, a submission can claim technical merit relevant to the subject, usually because the artist is notable or the execution is so arresting that a visitor would be compelled to find out more.
Hence the FPC process ideally has two kinds of contributor: expert editors and interested bystanders, because the majority of visitors are (correspondingly) visually literate people looking for quality information. A keen eye is preferable to a trained one. Expert image critics bring so many esoteric criteria to the table that the true value of an image is either inflated, obscured or entirely lost, depending on the prevailing wind; most of the time, your opinion is more valuable for its lack of them. mikaultalk 11:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyediting recent changes

A lot of rule creep, albeit necessary, makes for daunting reading if your're here for the first time. Footnotes have worked well in the past & I hope my edits have eased up the space without diluting the message. I can see a few more wordy elements that could benefit the same way. If there's no objections, I'll footnote the specific examples in #8 and the stuff about vector image sin #2 as well. mikaultalk 12:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excluding GFDL 1.2-only images

Now that the license migration has been approved by the community and the WMF board, I don't see any reason why we should continue to feature GFDL 1.2-only images. Once the license changes are implemented on en.wiki next month, those images will have to be removed from their articles, since GFDL 1.2 is not cc-by-sa compatible (which will become our preferred license for article reuse). Once the images are removed from the articles they will no longer meet the Featured Image criteria. It seems like a waste of effort for us to continue promoting them in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Text based pictures

I find myself taking great issue with these images being labeled as featured pictures. The basic problem is that they just don't work well as illustrative images for articles. Using today's featured image as an example, look at its use in the article Japanese Instrument of Surrender. First off, its use is immediately rendered redundant by the section "Text", which transcribes the image in a readable format, but the bigger issue is how it looks. As a thumbnail, it's completely illegable: rectangles of white with specks of black. I argue that these types of images do not "illustrate the subject in a compelling way". Even after clicking on the image, the preview on my screen is still unreadable. It requires viewing at the full resolution to see the image properly at all.

In my opinion, featured images are meant to be images of high technical and informative value that work well both within articles (as thumbnails supplementing text) and outside of articles (as standalone, great images). I find these images work better as supplementary material and belong in WikiCommons, not as thumbnails in articles.--Remurmur (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point about the compelling nature and informative value, but, it has to be said, Wiki FPs are all about working within articles, almost regardless of their status as standalone images. Those, if anything, are what belong at Commons. Another thing given significant weight for WP:FP is historical value, such that original documents pertaining to important events will always be very highly prized; I doubt you would get support for a delisting, although you're obviously welcome to nominate it. Although I do wonder if the encyclopedic value of the Japanese document is demonstrated by its use in the article (you would expect it to be the lead image, at least) I think it's fair to say it was featured more for its documentary value than aesthetic reasons. In general I think you might be overlooking that fact that there are no equivalent "featured document" or "featured diagram" projects – the FPC project accepts a wide range of media that don't need to be (and often aren't) outstanding outside the context of their subject matter. --mikaultalk 11:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Licence

The 4º criteria states that images must have a free licence, ruling out non-free images uploaded locally under the non-free content criteria. But what about images that are uploaded locally because of being in the public domain in the US but not in the country of origin, and as such are requested not to be moved to Commons? (See Category:Images in the public domain in the United States) Can those images be considered for featured status? MBelgrano (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes... we can't use non-free images due to the policy that they only be used on pages that we can justify on, and displaying them here would be against that. But a PD image that isn't PD in it's country of origin but PD in the united states would be allowed to be displayed anywhere on this project, so it should be eligible for a FP. I don't think we require FP's to ONLY reside on Commons, although some editors I think prefer this. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Historical document restoration and FP criteria

I am seeking clarification in the FP criteria (WP:WIAFP) regarding the restoration of historical images. The current WP:FP criteria offers lots of direction with regards to photographs but little direction in terms of other types historical documents. Criteria 8 doesn’t offer much in terms of the appropriateness of digital manipulation for the purposes of restoring images to their original state. I understand that FP is certainly more subjective than other feature works. However, this does not void the need for defined selection criteria. As of current, there is nothing to provide that documents should, or should not be, restored to original state. The issue has come about in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First World War maps and differences of opinion on whether to restore or not restore images is making consensus difficult to reach. A policy clarification is requested.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO Either you draw a new map eventually linking to the original scan as a source, either you provide a scan with minimal digital manipulation. I don't like the middle of the road attitude. Ericd (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

When we look at a restoration here, we almost always compare, (at least I think all the regulars here do) what the original looked like to the restoration. We require that the restoration be "true" to the original, as in your restoring the digital file to be most likely how the original image looked before it deteriorated or was damaged. Recreating major parts of an image or changing something, would likely disqualify it for a FP. I'm not exactly sure what your asking though... — raeky (talk | edits) 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
To add, on the linked nomination I think most of the opposes was on EV grounds, which is a completely separate issue. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_criteria"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export