Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Raven Rattle, late 19th Century Tlingit culture; Fort Wrangell, Alaska.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Raven Rattle, late 19th Century Tlingit culture; Fort Wrangell, Alaska.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2017 at 22:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Musical_instruments, Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Bowers Museum - uploaded by Susan M Anderson - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Support -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)- Support lNeverCry 04:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not seeing anything here that takes it above a QI. The background/surface is uninspiring and there's too much of that vs the object. I'd expect a studio shot of such an object to be sharp and detailed, and this isn't quite. The background is puzzlingly noisy but the EXIF suggests the original may be under exposed and unsharp, and the processing to correct that has introduced lots of noise. What's the purpose of FP over QI if the subject or photography is merely adequate. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: That is all valid criticism. Before you brought it up none of it crossed my mind. In response to your "What's the purpose" question: As an infrequent but repeat user of the Commons grading systems I often do not know which process to use. I came here to get some validation back to the museum that the Wikimedia community had some critique of their submission and also to get some approval of the image in case I distributed it around multiple articles. Overall, I am looking for some image grading to justify more-than-typical reuse of images, and am ambivalent about what form that should take. If an image is suggested to be integrated across languages, and in Wikidata, and elsewhere, then it seems right to me to submit it for grading somewhere. If anyone ever wanted to have talks about reforming the grading process then I might talk about that, because I would not have minded grading process that could have had any of a number of outcomes like "FP", "QI", "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects", etc. Right now it is still fairly novel for museums to make media donations, but as this trend steps up, I would like for there to be clearer guidance about what Wikipedians can do to mediate between museums and the Commons community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- There is no unitary grading system. VIC, QIC and FPC have different criteria. Also, QIs have to be photographed by Commons members, whereas VIs and FPs don't have to. Check the Commons category, but this would seem to be a good VI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a bit puzzled what you were expecting from FP. It's a perfectly reasonable picture, albeit with quite a lot of room left round the subject, and could be used in articles related to the subject. That's not really what we are judging here. While we aim (albeit imperfectly) to determine professional standards of technical quality in an image, we're also looking for something extra that takes it to be among our finest images. We need to be wowed, either by an amazing subject captured well or a mundane subject captured extraordinarily, or by amazing light, or a great moment, etc etc. One could set up a table with an infinite sheet of grey card, some soft boxes and a DSLR and snap away taking perfectly competent photos all day. They could be very useful documents of the collection of the museum and perfectly usable images, but what is special about them? Also, this photo is five years old, so you are not really getting feedback about what sort of photos they should take -- the photographer who took this has probably moved on long ago. Personally, I wish QI was merely a judge of a "professional quality; useful image" and didn't care about the image origins or some of the pixel-peeping that goes on. We lack that kind of grade and it seems to me the most useful one for our re-users because they could eliminate the poor quality images that one would need to be desperate to use. Btw, "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects" is unlikely to be a grading criteria. Commons is about more than WMF projects or the concerns of a MediaWiki user interface. I see the Bowers museum has a mission to "enrich lives through the world's finest arts and cultures" and "celebrate world cultures through their arts". If they believe that extends beyond the visitors to their museum, then sharing their collection with the world using freely licensed photos is one way. While Commons doesn't provide a great UI for viewing a collection, it does make it easy to share those images and permit their reuse elsewhere. Surely they should be mainly concerned with taking and offering the best photos they can, rather than worry about the opinions of half a dozen amateurs or their use on Wikimedia projects? Any professional photographer of artefacts will likely give better advice than anyone here can. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Colin: That is all valid criticism. Before you brought it up none of it crossed my mind. In response to your "What's the purpose" question: As an infrequent but repeat user of the Commons grading systems I often do not know which process to use. I came here to get some validation back to the museum that the Wikimedia community had some critique of their submission and also to get some approval of the image in case I distributed it around multiple articles. Overall, I am looking for some image grading to justify more-than-typical reuse of images, and am ambivalent about what form that should take. If an image is suggested to be integrated across languages, and in Wikidata, and elsewhere, then it seems right to me to submit it for grading somewhere. If anyone ever wanted to have talks about reforming the grading process then I might talk about that, because I would not have minded grading process that could have had any of a number of outcomes like "FP", "QI", "suitable for broad circulation in other wiki projects", etc. Right now it is still fairly novel for museums to make media donations, but as this trend steps up, I would like for there to be clearer guidance about what Wikipedians can do to mediate between museums and the Commons community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin. A tighter crop might address some of those issues, but at the cost of making the picture too small to be nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Colin – LucasT 19:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
