Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Covid-19 San Salvatore 06.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

COVID-19 San Salvatore, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2020 at 20:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Portrait of Silvia Ligi, anesthesiologist doctor
    Portrait of Silvia Ligi, anesthesiologist doctor
  • Portrait of Vincenzo Siciliano, intensive care nurse
    Portrait of Vincenzo Siciliano, intensive care nurse
  • Portrait of Francesca Palumbo, intensive care nurse
    Portrait of Francesca Palumbo, intensive care nurse
  • Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor, in a moment of pause
    Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor, in a moment of pause
  • Portrait of Federico Paolin, anesthesiologist doctor
    Portrait of Federico Paolin, anesthesiologist doctor
  • Portrait of Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor
    Portrait of Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor
Is the first time I candidated images as featured. I chooses a set, as for me has on "all together" meaning: same place, same profession, same mood. Then I saw the first comments and I thought that choosing a set instead of 6 single nominations was not a great idea and I was there to put the WithDraw template, thinking that maybe the Commons set has a different meaning. But first I took another look to the comments and in that moment yes, I was sure that my initial choice was correct. This is a set, because is the same effort and despair, the same faces tired (after 12-hour schedule without even taking a break to go to the bathroom) and signed by protection dispositives. What unites them is the same topic/theme (part of an unique photoshoot), same hospital and profession, the same painful time, the same story. Less one, even the same genre, portraits. --Camelia (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco Agree with kipping the 5 portraits (as per Alexmar983 and Postcrosser too) and do a separate nomination for n° 09. What do I need to do, just delete number 09 from the this list and the Multiple image template from it? --Camelia (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Camelia: have you read the rules for a set nomination? 5 portraits don't fulfill them either. Poco a poco (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support but removing the image of Annalisa Silvestri in the corridor: I think the other could be considered as a set, since they depict a same kind of image (faces tired and signed by protection dispositives after a long day of work), and are very representative of the present situation and of the work of doctors and nurses --Postcrosser (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per KoH and Charles.--Ermell (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's a pity! The critics here are right, technically. This nom doesn't really qualify under the terms that define our "sets". But you know what? I don't care this time! These images are outstanding, a truly artistic sequence that one would expect to leaf through in magazines like the British Journal of Photography. That being said, I'd remove 09 - which doesn't really fit - and present it again in an independent nom. It's certainly FP, as well. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Falbisoner, I removed the photo n° 09 from this list and inserted on it the template Withdraw - I don't know if is enough - and I will candidate this photo again. Yes, I read the rules which say that Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set (only pamphlets, puzzles, pendant paintings?) and A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object (related only to other animals?). The examples are a few, is hard to imaginate from the begining of writing a rule, what is not possible to be logically intended as a set. In this case, the photographer intended these foto as an unicum and you can find the photos published as a set on The Atlantic, Stern, Art Tribune, Photography Festival. And the photoshoot was also intended this way when was published by The British Journal of Photography called Exhaustion and emptiness: Faces of those on the frontline. --Camelia (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Camelia.boban: you can't suppress a picture of your nomination just like that, after 9 reviewers supported the set as it is, with all these 6 pictures. Please read the guidelines at the top of this page, in the yellow box, section "Set nominations" -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As others said above, this candidature does not qualify under the criteria of a set. The guidelines say: Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. ⛔️ -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Quite honestly, I'm not sure I'm emotionally able to evaluate these photos as a set, but though I totally get that #9 is dissimilar enough not to be part of a set of portraits of medical personnel showing the lines on their faces from wearing their N95 masks, aside from that, if this is ineligible to be judged as a set, I think that's a real problem, because there's no way we could judge a complete set of portraits of all medical personnel with lines on their faces from wearing N95 masks. I'm inclined to vote for this set just to make a point. I don't think that would be responsible, but I think we may need to reconsider policy on what can constitute a set. How are we going to support documentary pictures properly if they can't be sets? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan, you're saying you're not "emotionally able to evaluate" these photos as a set. You said something similar in this nomination. What's the reason exactly? Also, where's the problem of nominating them individually? This set (or that one) had the same issue. One image per nomination, is it not the way we proceed here usually to review a particular image, taking the time to evaluate it fairly in the light of our standards and personal tastes? There are many more available in the same the series: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15... why this particular set, arbitrarily? Is it the choice of the artist? No. So why excluding the others? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily? No, is not arbitrarily, the guidelines say Images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected. As you can see, is the same quality, but I selected only the high resolution photos from the serie to candidate as FP. --Camelia (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I might not be able to evaluate their quality emotionally is because I live in New York City, which experienced a hell comparable to Lombardy and of course remains under threat from this pandemic, so it's hard for me to have enough objectivity to vote based sufficiently on something other than my emotional reaction to these photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the other nomination you linked was a heroic equestrian statue of a notorious Jew-murderer. I think I explained that there; why did you feel the need to link to it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. I can understand your feeling since as I explained in the other nom I fell the same for a previous portrait of a French politician. But I was wondering the reason here, and now I understand. It reminds me the candidature we had during the Hong Kong protest, when the event was the hottest, nobody fell so comfortable because of the lack of perspective -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I feel that judging photos can be a difficult task, because an emotional reaction to these kinds of photos is desirable, but if I can't get sufficiently beyond that level, I risk judging only with my heart and not my head, so to speak. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per KoH and Charles. - -Karelj (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --PierreSelim (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment After this discussion I contacted the photographer asking him if uploading only 6 photos in high resolution was a choice. No, was as an oversight of someone who used for the first time our wiki platform, so he accepted to upload a new version of the other 11 files in HD. Now, the situation changed, the set should contain all the 16 photos, or at least all the portraits (15 photos). My opinion is that continues to be a set as intended by BJP, Faces of the frontline, but, in order to not have a further copy of this discussion, I'm here to understand from you what is the best way to act. I read several opinions, literally stick to the rules or see this situation as an exception we faced with (someone was also talking about reviewing the policies). For this reason I will wait for the natural end of the voting process, to have more thoughts on this. --Camelia (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time for new nomination with all the pictures "which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set". Yes, it is possible it will be not enough "in accordance with rules" for oponents. I will definitelly support it, even if it will be not in strict accordance with rules. It is clear IAR case for me.--Grtek (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 11 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Covid-19_San_Salvatore_06.jpg&oldid=425045857"