Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States/Judging

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States - Logo (blank).svg
FacebookIcon.png Twitter Logo Mini.svg

Wiki Loves Monuments 2018 in the United States
A campaign to improve our coverage of U.S. historic and cultural sites
throughout the month of September.


2018 Event PageDiscussion


Judging for Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in the United States takes place throughout the duration of October. Photos will be judged based on the following criteria:

This year, judging will be split into several rounds rounds, as described below. Judges will make use of the Montage judging tool. Please note that the process and logistics of the judging process may change at any time.

Rounds[edit]

Pre-Jury (October 1-2)[edit]

The pre-jury round takes place with the organizers, who filter submissions based on the following criteria:

  • The subject of the photograph is not an eligible monument for the US contest.
  • The image is a low resolution (below 3.5 megapixels); images that don't make the resolution cutoff will still be reviewed, and exceptional submissions will be kept.
  • The subject of the photograph is of a very popular monument that is already extremely well-covered on Commons (e.g., Washington Monument, Golden Gate Bridge), and the composition and quality of the photograph is similar to what is already available (i.e., it shows it from the same angle, or from the same time of day or season).

The purpose of the pre-jury is to remove ineligible or redundant photos and make the jury's pool of images a reasonable size to be able to judge in an efficient manner.

Round 1 (October 4-17)[edit]

All photos deemed eligible following the pre-judging process were included in the pool for Round 1. Round 1 judges each reviewed a sub-set of these photos, and voted Yes/No regarding whether or not the photo should qualify for Round 2. Quorum for Round 1 was two, and the threshold for advancement to Round 2 was also two - meaning: only those photos that received a "Yes" vote from both judges who reviewed it were advanced to Round 2.

Judges were asked to approach the Yes/No vote for advancement from Round 1 to Round 2 using the following criteria, and to refer to the Commons Image Guidelines for further detail on how to approach and assess these technical and artistic qualities:

Yes

  • The photo is of high technical and artistic quality with regard to exposure, focus, depth of field, color, lighting, and composition.
  • The photo illustrates its subject in an informative manner, that serves to impart knowledge about it.
  • Image editing/digital manipulation of the image is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive the viewer. Editing should be limited to cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and color/exposure correction.

No

  • The photo does not satisfy conditions listed under Yes above.

Round 1 Jury[edit]

Judge Bio
Ivan Silva A public librarian in the San Francisco Bay Area. Originally from Cape Verde Islands in West Africa.
Daniel Case A Wikipedian and Commons contributor with several featured pictures to his credit at both sites. Lives in New York's Hudson Valley.
Britta Gustafson A Wikipedian and amateur historian in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Tess.T.Leon A retired programmer now working in freelance software testing and historical/genealogical research along side a healthy diet of creative endeavors, heavily laden with digital images. Brooklyn-born, Minnesota-raised, transplanted to the desert Southwest.
Sfphotoarchivist Photo Curator at the San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library.
A mostly-amateur historian, writer, and photographer in the NY metro area, also studying and working in the food and beverage industry.

Round 2 (October 17-24)[edit]

Judges reviewed the qualifying photos from Round 1, and rank them on a 1-5 star scale. Round 2 had a quorum of three, and the threshold for advancement to Round 3 was an average score of 4.332 stars - meaning: in order to advance to Round 3, a photo needed to receive an average ranking of 4.332 stars from the three judges who reviewed it.

Judges were asked to base their 1-5 star ranking on their assessment of the photo's photographic quality and encyclopedic value. Judges were asked to go deeper into consideration of the photos' encyclopedic value through reviewing the Featured Picture/Quality Image Guidelines before starting the judging process, and to keep these guidelines in mind throughout the round.

When appropriate, judges were also encouraged to explore the coverage on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia for the particular monument depicted in the photo, in order to gauge how "well known" or "well-covered" that monument is on Wiki. (However, this was not a requirement for this round, and common sense was sufficient regarding evaluation of how "well-known" the monument is).

Instructions for Round 2 Judges

Judges reviewed the qualifying photos from Round 1, and ranked them on a 1-5 star scale, basing their ranking on their assessment of the photo's photographic quality and encyclopedic value, per the above and the following:

Ask yourself: Could this photo function as an important illustrative aid to understanding the monument/structure, its history, and/or the social environment it is situated in? Does it illustrate an aspect of the monument that is unique, or rarely seen?

Also consider the technical and artistic quality of the image, especially as it relates to the image's value for the encyclopedia. To what extent does the image meet the requirements set forth in the Featured Picture/Quality Image Guidelines on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_guidelines), especially in terms of the image's "value" as an illustrative aid that transmits knowledge as much as it sparks the imagination (or however you interpret the "wow factor" in this context)?

1 - 5 Star Rating | Guidelines:

  • 1 star:
Lacks sufficient photographic quality and encyclopedic value to advance to Round 3.
  • 2 stars:
Adequate Photographic quality, and encyclopedic value, but lacks noteworthiness in some way (for example, its subject is already very well documented on Wiki, or the photograph is not particularly striking).
  • 3 stars:
High quality, thoughtfully captured photo that aids understanding of its subject.
  • 4 stars:
High quality, artistically captured photo that aids understanding of its subject, where its subject is less commonly-known (or well-known, but shown in a unique way).
  • 5 stars:
High quality, artistically captured photo that aids understanding of its subject, where its subject is less commonly-known (or well-known, but shown in a unique way), AND there is something indescribable beyond "wow" in the image that is thrilling and inspiring in a way that makes one want to go learn more about it and maybe add it to a Wiki article.

Round 2 Jury[edit]

Judge Bio
Merrilee A librarian and Wikipedian living in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Daniel Case A Wikipedian and Commons contributor with several featured pictures to his credit at both sites. Lives in New York's Hudson Valley.
Tess T. Leon A retired programmer now working in freelance software testing and historical/genealogical research along side a healthy diet of creative endeavors, heavily laden with digital images. Brooklyn-born, Minnesota-raised, transplanted to the desert Southwest.
Dreamyshade A Wikipedian and amateur historian in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Ivan Silva A public librarian in the San Francisco Bay Area. Originally from Cape Verde Islands in West Africa.
Zeinabarakeh Coming soon

Round 3 (October 25-29)[edit]

Judges reviewed the qualifying photos from Round 3 and visually ranked them in a grid to determine the top 3 photos that won the US competition and the top 10 photos that were submitted to the International Competition. The winning photos were those that received the highest average ranking among the Round 3 judges.

For this final round, judges were instructed to think very deeply about the photos’ encyclopedic value by also looking into further coverage of the monument on Commons and on Wikipedia. This is in addition to evaluating each photo's artistic and photographic qualities such as exposure, focus, depth of field, color, lighting, composition, showing unique details, and the the overall “wow” factor.

Judges were asked to make their assessment in two parts:

Photographic/Artistic Qualities:

For each photograph, ask yourself: Does the photo show a unique or informative detail of the monument, or evoke the experiential qualities of being in its presence? Is it captivating in a manner that inspires me to want to learn more about the monument and its history, and share that knowledge with others? Does it have exceptional aesthetic qualities including exposure, focus, depth of field, color, lighting, and composition?

Encyclopedic Value:

Check the current status of other photographs of this monument on Wikimedia Commons, as well as coverage of the monument on Wikipedia (e.g., does the monument have a Wikipedia article). Is the monument depicted not already well-covered on Wikimedia Commons? If there is a Wikipedia article for this monument, would this photograph be well-suited to illustrate it?

Rank the photos according to how affirmatively you answer the above questions for each photo. In other words, the photos which you place first in the visual ranking grid should be those for which you answer “yes” most emphatically, and those you place at the end should be those for which the answer is more in the direction of “No” for one or both questions.

For example: a stunning photo of a very famous monument that already has many photos on Commons should rank lower than a similarly stunning photo of a monument that has few, or no, other photos on Commons. However, a stunning photo of an already well-covered monument could certainly rank higher if it has some exceptional artistic or encyclopedic quality (such as showing it from a unique angle, or showing a detail that makes it especially informative or useful for a Wikipedia article).

Round 3 Jury[edit]

Judge Bio
Evan Amos Photographer from Brooklyn who has been an active Wikipedian since 2010. He primarily contributes with comprehensive, themed galleries of photos of objects, including food, candy and electronics. His most notable work is his video game hardware gallery, comprised of photos of almost every video game console released in the last forty years.
Tess T. Leon A retired programmer now working in freelance software testing and historical/genealogical research along side a healthy diet of creative endeavors, heavily laden with digital images. Brooklyn-born, Minnesota-raised, transplanted to the desert Southwest.
Dreamyshade A Wikipedian and amateur historian in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Ivan Silva A public librarian in the San Francisco Bay Area. Originally from Cape Verde Islands in West Africa.
Sfphotoarchivist Photo Curator at the San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library.
Zeinabarakeh Coming soon

Prizes and sendoff[edit]

Once round 3 has been concluded, the top-ten winners will be announced! Winners of the national contest will be notified via talk page message and e-mail. If you do not have your e-mail added and/or enabled, you may do so here.

All ten best photos will be awarded a certificate, as well as a United States Wiki Loves Monuments t-shirt. The top three contenders in the United States will also receive the following prizes:

  • Best image (1st): $200
  • Best image (First runner-up): $125
  • Best image (Second runner-up): $75

The United States' top ten photos will also be submitted to the international Wiki Loves Monuments jury. The international jury will determine the winners of the international competition and award their prizes (up to 2,000 Euros). More information on the international jury can be found here