Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Image:Josh Homme 2007 2.jpg
Seems to meet the criteria, but I am a neophyte so I thought I would get it reviewed first
- Nominated by
- скоморохъ 13:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Thanks for your nomination. As came up on a recent nom at FPC, what's with the B&W in a photo from 2007? Personally I find that unjustified and an obvious reason for an oppose, but it didn't seem to worry many other voters. What it seems to depend on with a picture like this is finding enough fans of this person to come along and offer their support, and other concerns pale into insignificance - I'm not sure what this man's fan-base on Wiki would be like. --jjron (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I take your point on the B/W, but I personally think the narrower colour range give the image a striking quality. I am mystified by the suggestion that an image reaching featured status depends on the fans of the topic - surely the process is not this parochial? Is it not a question of simply fulfilling or not fulfilling clearly delineated criteria? скоморохъ 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- In theory yes, but the reality is that viewing pictures is somewhat subjective. If a picture is of someone that you're a fan of, then you're far more likely to apply the standards more 'generously' or make overt exceptions (which if you look at the criteria is permitted if you think it's justified). FWIW I've just checked up, and the image I was specifically referring to actually wasn't promoted after all (see here; sorry, I was a bit miffed when I first replied because I thought it would get promoted as FP, and was thinking it quite undeserving, so my response was perhaps a little exaggerated). You wouldn't by any chance happen to have (or be willing to upload) the colour version for us to compare would you? --jjron (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's disheartening, I found the featured article reviewers to be rather objective. I don't have an original copy of the image I am afraid, but for comparison, this shot is of the same subject by the same photographer at the same concert. Regards, скоморохъ 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- By their nature pictures are more subjective; objective criteria are easier to apply to articles. I've read discussions where FA reviewers apparently aren't always entirely objective anyway (e.g., opposing articles on certain topics because they don't like the subject), but I don't really follow the project so can't say much more. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the B&W is more pleasing to the eye, but we're after encyclopedic value above all else, and color is much more encyclopedic. Cacophony (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- By their nature pictures are more subjective; objective criteria are easier to apply to articles. I've read discussions where FA reviewers apparently aren't always entirely objective anyway (e.g., opposing articles on certain topics because they don't like the subject), but I don't really follow the project so can't say much more. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's disheartening, I found the featured article reviewers to be rather objective. I don't have an original copy of the image I am afraid, but for comparison, this shot is of the same subject by the same photographer at the same concert. Regards, скоморохъ 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- In theory yes, but the reality is that viewing pictures is somewhat subjective. If a picture is of someone that you're a fan of, then you're far more likely to apply the standards more 'generously' or make overt exceptions (which if you look at the criteria is permitted if you think it's justified). FWIW I've just checked up, and the image I was specifically referring to actually wasn't promoted after all (see here; sorry, I was a bit miffed when I first replied because I thought it would get promoted as FP, and was thinking it quite undeserving, so my response was perhaps a little exaggerated). You wouldn't by any chance happen to have (or be willing to upload) the colour version for us to compare would you? --jjron (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder
