Wikipedia talk:Picture peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suggested format

I wonder if the suggested format for submissions is right. It ends with

*Nominate and '''support'''. - ~~~~

which is surely something for WP:FPC rather than here? Isn't this page about gathering opinions and suggestions, not votes? What are the votes for - promotion to WP:FPC? If the submitter wanted that, they could just have put it there themselves. If this is somewhere where people are going to vote on pictures, it seems to be redundant - that's what FPC is for. TSP 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. Part of the original concept of PPR was that it would be a staging post for FPC and so we tried to keep the individual submission pages quite similar, so that a nomination could be moved over to FPC when ready. As it happens, PPR is developing its own style on its own, so it could well be a good idea to update the nomination template. -- Solipsist 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I favor changing the template. It should only be about comments, not voting. Just confusing that way! InvictaHOG 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Escalade Commmemoration

Hi, I moved this from the main article space because it seems more like talk. Thanks.-Andrew c 01:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity in "Instructions," please!

The "Instructions" section states the following:

To ask for help with a picture fill out an FPC template, then add it to an appropriate section below.
  1. Review Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? to make sure the image is up to standards.
    1. If you think your picture may not meet standards add it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for review.
  2. …

If our pictures may not be up to snuff, then what? This sort of incomplete direction is confusing, and makes your average wiki-dolt like me feel even more like a wiki-dolt.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm just your average wiki-dolt: sometimes I just don't think things through. That said, being a wiki-dolt, I'm still not sure I quite understand the directions fully. Perhaps something a little simpler is in order.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

When removing old pictures, should we move them to an archive, or just remove the transclusions? -- Norvy (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think we should just remove them. --Digon3 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog tag added Pstuart84 Talk 09:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a backlog tag, pending a decision whether old discussions are archived or deleted. My preference is for archiving - it should be quite easy to move the section headers from the main page to an archive page. Pstuart84 Talk 09:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, we should archive them. "If a suggestion doesn't find a seconder within one week, it can be removed to make way for new suggestions". It take more than a week on average for a person to even comment on a photo. --Digon3 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented out some completed reviews at the bottom of the page. I don't know what we'll do with them, though. `MER-C 08:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I advocate archiving, because if one feels to go back into the more historic comments, one can learn quite a lot. Comments in particular on blunders that one does not encounter for photos that are submitted as FP.--Klaus with K 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I am going to go ahead and archive them by year. If we decide to do something else we can always delete the pages--Digon3 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. I archived up to March 2007. The links to the archives are at the bottom of the page. --Digon3 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Needed

I wanted to put this up for review, but I honestly have no idea how. Can someone help? NyyDave 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QI-style?

A discussion on the WP:FPC talk page got me thinking that Picture Peer Review could also work as a QI-style review, ie with an award for the best. I'm not at all clear how it would work, maybe like FPC, maybe just needing a couple of seconders to promote it, maybe, I dunno, a points system? But not a separate project; it effectively covers the same ground as WP:PPR. The aim is to encourage better-quality uploads from our resident photographers by offering a review, advice, perhaps revamping but ultimately recognising better than average submissions which don't quite reach FP standards. I think FPC has helped raise image standards in general but may be a bar too high for many worthy snappers to jump, and this might add in that incentive on another level. There's actually a proposal for a further "level" there which I think is probably more along the lines of what would work here. Any thoughts? --mikaultalk 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nomination procedure

I made some updates to the procedure, to include more in the inputbox, hope you don't mind. →AzaToth 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Optimum picture size?

The guidelines for a featured picture say "the larger the better." But in practical terms, what should we shoot for? -Freekee (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, a minimum of 1000px along the longest edge. In practical terms, an FP would need to be exceeed that by a good margin. --mikaultalk 08:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delistings

Could this page be used as a "spot check" for delistings? Guest9999 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Pictures Proposal

Following a lengthy discussion on the Featured picture candidates Talkpage a general consensus was met to develop an alternative method of recognising pictures to Featured Pictures, to be known as Valued Pictures - see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Valued_Pictures_Proposal.

Further discussions have also been held on my talkpage and other users' talkpages. To bring it together in one location I am opening the discussion here. A key reason is that the basic proposal included the notion that PPR would serve as the staging ground for Valued Picture Candidates.

How would this all work. Please head over to User:Jjron/VP Trial and you'll get a pretty good idea of how I propose the process would look and function. Note: one of the key changes from my original proposal is the removal of the Certified VP Assessors, so that anyone can vote on VPCs.

I have added sections below for general discussion on the various aspects of the proposal. Follow the links in the headings to the relevant section of the User:Jjron/VP Trial page. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

  • My proposal co-opts PPR for VPC use. There have been suggestions to rename PPR to VPC, or to create a new VPC page (which would lead to three different image projects). I think VPC should be integrated into PPR as proposed, and suggest creating a VPC redirect page that will point to PPR, and adding Valued pictures to the Fpipages template. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm quite convinced that the redirect should be the other way around, ie, redirect and remane PPR as VPC. The same rationale behind not having a separate VPC page supports an integrated VPC/PPR page in which the peer review itself is a natural part of VP nomination. The effect will be to retain the format of PPR while replacing the procedure with that of VPC, in which case the name should reflect content, rather than past usage. --mikaultalk 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The crux is, if we start to award VP status on PPR, why would anyone want to go to the trouble of nominating an image for review without also seeking VP status? We could poll current PPR nominators and find out why they bring images here, but my bet is that 90% of them come here looking for a springboard to FPC. The idea of a picture peer review may not be deprecated, but the page name "picture peer review" almost certainly is, or at least will be once we start attracting more traffic with the new VP award. Renaming the PPR page "Valued Picture Candidates" or even "Valued Picture Review" would reflect this, and hugely simplify the whole process at a stroke, as you'd no longer need the VPonly/VP&PPR/PPRonly confusion. --mikaultalk 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Having thought about this some more I find I'm not really fussed. In fact I sought of envisioned a transition I guess from PPR to VPC over time; in effect what you're suggesting would probably have been a natural process, rather than rapid usurpation. However, as you've suggested it adds to a slight complexity (having both processes running together). It would probably be neater to just do a direct changeover, but I guess I feared some people may consider it rather improper to do so. Has anyone else got any thoughts on this? --jjron (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Revamped PPR Header

  • As I remarked above, the header needn't differentiate between a VPC review and a PPR, as a peer review is basically the same thing. Outstanding candidates would still be submitted to FPC, bypassing or kind of "leapfrogging" the VP review. We really need this process to be as simple as possible; the proposal as it stands is very straightforward, apart from this issue. --mikaultalk 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Valid points. I struggled to try to keep this simple, while still incorporating both processes. See above comments, i.e., yes, it would be easier to just merge the PPR into VPC in one hit, but considerably bolder as well. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nomination Instructions/Procedure

  • Note the nomination process works to create a new nom for the trial page. Feel free to give it a try, see the proposed template, and add your test nom to the list if you like. --jjron (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A purely technical thing: I propose to let subpagename=image name, i.e., /Image:aVPC.jpg, and then use {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} as the autogenerated image name. Later, if the image is promoted this makes it easier to autogenerate a link to the original nomination from the image page based on {{PAGENAME}} in a {{VP}} (or whatever) marker template. There are likely to be cases where it is an edit which is promoted. For those cases the subpage=image name logic is broken, so I recommend preparing a {{VP}} template to take an optional subpage parameter to override the default link when these situations occur. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe this is what they do on Commons (e.g., Com:FPC). Another problem with it is that when a nomination fails and is later renominated, that also creates issues, especially if promoted on the second nom. Personally I prefer the current system, but if there's a huge groundswell for this we could look at it. --jjron (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just tried to test nominate an image. For me the nomination process works well, instructions are adequate, and I had no problems whatsoever. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The nomination process is quite simple, much like FPC. No problems for me. Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] How to Comment

  • On the no oppose votes I have understood from your previous thoughts that the intention is to stimulate a more positive and less harsh atmosphere as compared to what you can experience at FPC. I think the intention is good but I also see some potential problems. Say you have two-three happy-go-easy reviewers who support just about any nominations. The more more experienced, criticla reviewers will then natural post some comments stating something like. "I really think it would be a very, very bad idea to promote this image as VP as there is image 1, image 2, and image 3, which are clearly better illustrations". Such a comment is really an oppose wlthough not formally and the closer wil somehow have to take it into consideration making the closing procedure more susceptible to the personal opinion of the closer. And in case you want to generally disallow critical comments, I think you loose credibility of the nomination process. In your original proposal where you ad the certified assessors (which i agree is a bad idea for ther reasns which you have also later repeated), this was not a problem as the certified assessors would not be of the happy-go-easy type. However by abandoning the CAs (which is sensible), I think you also have to abandon the idea of no oppose votes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What if we do have the oppose votes, but instead of having 2 supports for every oppose, we could have 1:1? That way the more responsible voters can keep the happy-go-easy reviewers in line. Or we could continue as described in the proposal, but then we might need to borrow MER-C close the noms. Muhammad(talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Maybe the problem is the whole support/oppose mechanism. There's no reason to not use these terms, but there's equally no reason to go counting votes. A closer should try to draw a consensus from the review comments, check that any issues have been resolved, ultimately promoting as & when there seems to be no reason not to. If there's no clear consensus, give it more time. If it's still unclear, close without promotion, or, if we give greater leeway and promote without a crystal-clear consensus, make good use of the review procedure. I like the idea that VPs are not VPs for life: better images should always be encouraged; existing VPs should never discourage nomination of images of similar subjects. --mikaultalk 00:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I must say this is still an area of concern to me too. I mentioned the issue of votestacking right from the start, Slaunger's points of soft voters are also valid. I'm not so much against the Oppose notion, but I don't particularly want images going up only to get the bagging they get at FPC. To me, nothing discourages nominations, and ultimately contributors, more quickly, but a significant point to this concept is to encourage good contributors and contributions. To my eye this problem seems to be getting worse at FPC, with a number of current voters seeming to have been born without any concept of tact. I suspect some poor voters from there will quickly find their way across to unleash their vitriol at VPC also. I also suspect they'll come across and just apply the FPC criteria at VPC. That's where Mick's comments about not simply using vote-counting probably come into play, i.e., say people are opposing based on FPC criteria rather than VPC criteria, the closer would just ignore their vote, probably leaving a note with the closure why this has happened. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I notice the replace mechanism, which I like. It is very much along the lines of the most valued review scheme we have set up at commons:COM:VIC. One question though. In your scheme you can only replace an existing VP. What happens if a reviewer argues that another image (which is not VP) is a better candidate during the review. Can it compete in the same nomination. Or can a new parallel nomination be setup for that one? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Good question. I don't think there's a problem there. As happens in some FPC nominations, an Alternative is put up during the nomination (i.e., not just an Edit, but an entirely different image). Often the Alternative is promoted rather than the Original. I expect the same process would occur here. It's probably less of an issue than on COM:VI as we haven't explicitly used the concept of scopes that you have there, so more than one image could be promoted if they went through different noms. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think mikaul's idea is a good one. The "vote" itself can be pretty meaningless; we've seen that on FPC, there there are multiple supports or delists or whatever "...per nom". In a lot of cases, I find the comments to be the most interesting part, and often contain the most detailed assessment. On FPC, the "empty" votes are less of a problem, in part because the opposes are so critical at times, but that's not really what we want to do here. Either formally or informally, the closer needs to weigh the arguments rather than the votes. Matt Deres (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)



[edit] Nomination template/layout

  • Add your own test nom if you like; it works basically as I propose it will at PPR. --jjron (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Valued Picture Criteria

  • Some additions to the original proposal. Perhaps the most notable is the addition to the EV criteria that the image has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month. Thoughts on that? I also suggested in my original proposal that it perhaps should only be for Wikipedian created content; any thoughts there? --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why do you want to limit it to wikipedian created content only? Are you anticipating an influx of historical images :)? Muhammad(talk) 19:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Good point: I'd want to include Flickr uploads, for example. --mikaultalk 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The "Wikipedian only" was just an idea - I think they use that process at COM:QI. It's really making the point that one of the big aims of this project is to encourage original contributions. Yeah, I had also considered a possible influx of things like historical images. For example, I can just see someone coming along and for example nominating every Holocaust image on Wikipedia, most of which likely are valuable, but conversely I don't see that we need 700 of them labelled as VPs. I'm not overly fussed as long as the system isn't abused - that's why I never put it in the criteria - but just wanted to put it out there to see what others thought. --jjron (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Regarding the influx concern that is one of the reasons why we at Commons have said "Only one VI per scope", which for WP could map into one illustration per article (and for larger articles maybe one for each major sub-topic). It is really a matter of doing a trade-off between simplicity of rules and influx safe-guarding. As you have repeated several times it is important to keep WP:VP guidelines simple (or at least simpler than COM:VI). If that is the case you not introduce a scope-like scheme as we have done at COM:VI. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • You mentioned above that if a better candidate was spotted one could add it as an alternative in the nomination. Although we call it something differently that is actually the same outcome we have with the Most Valued Review on COM:VI, only the implementation of the process is different. If an alternative can override an original candidate (which I think is sensible), you are quite close to having "one image per scope" actually although with a softer interpretation. Whether you want to restrict nominations to Wikipedians only or not is much a matter of what you want to acheive with the WP:VP? If it is to encourage Wikipedians to provide valuable image content the restriction is sensisble. If, on the other hand, you would like to put focus on valuable pictures suitable for Wikipedia articles I guess there should not be any restrictions on the creator, provided the image has a suitable license. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The criteria certainly need fleshing out a little, but I do think a more relaxed, informal and approachable process starts with simple, straightforward criteria. COM:VI seems burdened with interminable rule-mongering, which is a shame & something to be avoided here. --mikaultalk 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I expect the criteria would 'flesh out' a bit more with time. Are there any complaints or suggestions about the gist of what I've got up there to start with though? --jjron (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do I take it people are happy with the 'at least one month' criteria? (I had even considered whether it should be longer, say 3 months). --jjron (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • One month should be ok, because the three month period may discourage new contributors. Muhammad(talk) 15:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • For comparison, at COM:VI we do not have any requirements concerning current use. We see current usage in WMF project content pages as a possible indicator of value (it can also just be copy and paste form one Wiki to the other). On Commons we have the option of saying "media first, then page content". That is we can actively try to promote (possibly very fresh) material, which the WMF projects have not discovered yet. That means you can upload, then nominate. This gives an encouraging fast track process. On WP, on the other hand, it is "Articles first, then media" (as the spice on a meal). Thus, it seems reasonable here to require it has been used for some time in at least one article. Here, as Muhammad also mentiones the trick is to find the article-media balance. If you wait too long you loose synergy and momentum. If the period is too short you encourage POV pushing by potential nominators who by brute force inserts images in articles, just such that they can get nominated. The proposed 1 month period seems for me like a reasonably balanced period. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yep, I think you've hit the nail on the head. We see far too much fast-tracking at FPC (short-legs as I think Mikaul calls it), where an image goes into an article, is nominated at FPC immediately, and is often back out of the article before the nom even ends. That's not EV. I realise that's not an issue at COM:VI. I eventually settled on the one month for basically the reasons stated here. So I'd say one month it is. --jjron (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Closing Procedure


[edit] VP Promotion Template

  • Concerning the option 2 of shamelessly stealing the commons:COM:VI logo, I would prefer to use another logo. I fear it will cause some confusion where users cannot distinguish between COM:VI and WP:VP if they get the same logo. The two projects have quite similar overall goals, namely to promote images of value to each specific project. However, the implementation details are quite different, the emphasis in the guidelines are quite different, so the logos should be somehow different too. I would propose to derive a new logo from the Commons VI logo, by, e.g., adding an "en" subscript to the "V" letter and/or perhaps use a different colour scheme. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd agree it needs to be distinct, but there's no reason not to use the same logo within a different tag, as per COM:FP and WP:FP tags.--mikaultalk 00:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I won't 'shamelessly steal' the COM:VI logo ;-). If no one can get anything better before we start, I propose going with my Option 1 then. It can be updated if someone comes up with something better later. --jjron (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest we use an illustration or photograph of a Weighing scale with the scales tipped to one side, suggesting great value. LadyofHats should be able to design something like that. Muhammad(talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not a bad idea; don't think I've got access to any such appropriate scales though to knock out a photo to suit though. --jjron (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What about an illustration? Muhammad(talk) 15:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, could work, but I don't have the time, or quite frankly the skills, to make one. Any chance that you do? --jjron (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just came across this gallery at the COM:VPC talkpage. Would it be acceptable to use one of them, appropriately modified, instead of the final Commons one? --jjron (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The first logo here, may in fact be even better... In any case you would have to contact commons:User:LadyofHats as it is preliminary work from her hand, which is not released for use on Wikimedia. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] VP Nominator/Creator Templates

I suggest usage of the background colour purple, "CECEFA".

Example usage:

 Your nomination for Valued Picture status, Image:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg, gained sufficient support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. If you would like to nominate either this or another image for Featured Picture status please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. --Muhammad(talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad(talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice :o) --mikaultalk 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not overly fussed. Any particular reason? To me this colour makes the wikilink text a bit hard to read due to the colour clash, but either this or the colour I proposed are better than the FP promotion colour. Seems this is the preferred option? --jjron (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] VP Gallery Page

  • Having thought a little more on this, I think it's not a bad idea to link to the main article and state the creator, like is done in the Featured Picture subpages (but is not done in the FP Thumbs Gallery). Takes slightly longer for the closer though. --jjron (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] When to 'go live'?

  • I propose the 1st of June, 2008 to switch across to the new process, pending what happens in the discussions here. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Commons VP will officially start on 1st June. I suggest we speed things up, else we may not receive many reviewers. Muhammad(talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually I didn't realise the COM:VI process started then (I thought it had already started), and didn't intend to compete with them or attempt to steal their thunder. I don't mind delaying if people think there's an issue. I'm not too worried about not getting enough reviewers, I think each project will attract their own cohort. --jjron (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I saw the mentioning of low activity on COM:VI, which was partly related to the fact that we were running an elaborate test review phase to make the final adjustments to the process and guidelines. I am glad you do not see it as a competition. I do not see it as a competition either. As long as the overall purpose is to encourage the creation of valuable image content I do not mind that much how the package looks. I think you should just startup whenever you feel like the process and guildelines are in place and you feel a consensus has been reached. Be it June 1, be it any other time. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Cheers. Yeah, that could help explain the low activity at VI :-). And as I said in the comment you probably read, the projects may also help spur each other on a bit. I mainly chose June 1 due to my 'real life' schedule, but this may still need just a little more time for settling, and think it may be more polite to allow the Commons project to get underway first. This weekend I may instead rejig the trial page in light of the comments that have been left here, and see how people think it looks. --jjron (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Out of respect to the Commons project I propose delaying for a month, and officially launch on July 1 (or thereabouts - have just remembered I may be in transit at that time). I am currently developing a VP only page per above comments. Before that time I will probably create a real VPC page, and run a prelaunch period. --jjron (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Other Comments