Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australia women's national water polo team set

< Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

Australia women's national water polo team set

edit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2012 at 12:49:50 (UTC)

Reason
The pictures are high quality (all 1000px or above) and as a set help to give an idea as to who plays for the Australia women's national water polo team. With the exception of all the two assistant coaches, all the images are used to illustrate who a player (or coach) is on their individual article. Work best as a set as opposed to individually.
Articles in which this image appears
Bronwen Knox, Kate Gynther, Glencora Ralph,Ashleigh Southern, Nicola Zagame,Jane Moran, Holly Lincoln-Smith, Rowena Webster, Gemma Beadsworth, Melissa Rippon, Sophie Smith, Isobel Bishop, Zoe Arancini, Hannah Buckling, Alicia McCormack, Victoria Brown,Kelsey Wakefield,Greg McFadden
FP category for this image
Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport
Creator
Bidgee
  • The precedent is that if a subject is notable enough for an article, then it is notable enough for a FP. Most of these photos have corresponding individual articles, so I don't see a problem. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lighting is OK but doesn't flatter -- showing every pore and spot. The subjects are standing too close to the background, so the texture is visible as is their shadow. The 35mm-equivalent focal length of around 40mm is an odd choice for a portrait: the wide angle and being less than a metre from the subject isn't a flattering combination, especially for the nose. All the images have been cropped or downsampled to have 2k at the longest edge leaving a <4MP image from the original 18MP out of the camera. The set would be more useful if they had been cropped square rather than being almost square but varying in width and height. That all the ladies' pictures were taken within three minutes of each other tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait. Alicia, Gemma and Sophie aren't in focus. Ashleigh isn't looking at the camera. Holly is sloping to one side. Kelsey's smile is unfortunate. Rowena doesn't look happy at all. Gregory might have bothered to shave. Dalibor is too tall for the background.... --Colin°Talk 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was a quick photo shoot before the match, so time was limited. If I had my own way, I would have used a studio with the correct lighting but in this case it wasn't possible. Yes, the lens was a poor selection however a number of factors made me pick it. Sorry I'm fine with the criticism/critiquing but "tells you all you need to know about the care that went into each portrait", I take that as an insult and very much why I hate FP on en Wiki and Commons. I take care with all my photographs but when you're pressed for time and you don't have the gear that would have made the difference (I'm not made of money nor do I have a money tree). If you have a problem with my downsizing, that it your problem not mine. I have my reasons to downsize and no I don't do commercial photography. Fact is your insult has me questioning whether I want to contribute any further photographs to the project. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really sorry you have taken it this way. It wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sure you took as much care as 10-second-per-person allowed you to take. But the fact remains we are judging a featured picture here. Can I put it another way for you: Considering the photographer only had three minutes to take all these pictures, they're pretty good and make a valuable contributions to our articles on the subject. They're just not FP standard and I note that you didn't nominate them. Colin°Talk 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: As the quality of the pictures in terms of lens selection is an issue, some of the back story regarding the images. I asked the team media manager for permission to take pictures on Tuesday night. She arranged it so pictures could be taken two days later, at 5:10pm before the start of an international test match at 6:30pm against Great Britain, informed the players they would have their pictures taken and why they were desired. I was told the venue. There was very little flexibility available for Bidgee to play with. He had less than 48 hours notice to book a bus, arrange accommodation and chose the right camera materials for a type of picture he had very little experience taking. The venue/backdrop was chosen based on the team. The time of day was set because of the match time. It was taken inside a pool. There was an expectation by me and the media I talked to that Bidgee would take pictures of players in action during the game. At the same time, Bidgee had very, very little time to take these pictures. The time crunch was such that he took pictures of 17 women in about 5 minutes. (I had a list of their names, and recorded the picture order. Bidgee showed each player the picture after he took it.) There wasn't time enough to do much more than that. The blue back drop was a team suggestion. I think these are some of the best profile pictures taken of female athletes in any sport, and are superior to the pictures appearing on Australian Water Polo's website. Compare Bidgee's picture of Zoe Arancini to Australian Water Polo. Are they individually the best pictures ever? No, and a few could be fixed... but nothing us hugely problematic and as a set, they are in my opinion, really, really fantastic (especially given the conditions) and better than any others of their kind on Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the comment Bidgee took personally and apologised on his talk page. These pictures are valuable to WP and I appreciate the time you guys spent arranging this, taking the pictures and uploading them for free to WP. I agree that Zoe's picture is very good. I'm not aware that we have any "featured set" criteria that lowers the standard for individual pics but if someone wants to point me at it then I could revise my review. Colin°Talk 09:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Featured sets have always been a bit contentious. Nothing is written down and everybody has different feelings about them. Some feel that a set can be greater than the sum of it's parts. Others feel that each image should meet the FPC criteria individually, and often dislike the idea of sets because they feel each image isn't judged properly. Sometimes I attempt to avoid them, and just nominate small numbers of related images separately, but then I get comments like "these should be in a set". One can't win really. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with a featured set concept where not every pic needs to be individually FP quality (perhaps at least something like Commons' QI standards). I agree there is added value to the set over and above individual photographs. But no alternative criteria exists and this is a review of feature picture (singular) candidates, so I've judged the images against our criteria. I see now from this discussion that Laura was encouraged to nominate these by folk who haven't followed through with their support here. I feel she should have been better advised. This (Jeremy Doyle) featured pic is better than any of these, yet got quite a tough review at FPC. I wasn't nearly as picky as any of those comments. Colin°Talk 14:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example of the many problems with sets and why they're a bad idea. Individually and overall these images are good and valuable for WP (great job by both Bidgee and LauraHale, and anyone else involved), but I doubt anyone would argue they would all pass FPC individually. As noted above, there are no separate criteria to say that images in sets should have different standards applied to them. I'd suggest that the few best should be selected and nominated individually to get a more considered evaluation here. --jjron (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not repeat the mistake made earlier, which only led to disappointment when someone's bubble was burst. Are you confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain, and would you support them? We've got FPs that aren't as good technically as the best here, but they are of a really famous person, or have a more natural pose or lighting. Individually, these women are barely notable and it is obvious they were asked to stand against a wall and smile. Colin°Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I've only looked at about one of them closely (yet another issue with sets; how many people actually scrutinise them all before !voting as they would for a normal FPC?), which helps explain why I haven't !voted. But really it's not up to whether or not I would support them; it's whether any of them may stand a chance out on their own when opened up to the FP community. I'm not the community. And am I "confident there are a handful of images here that could make it through FP without further pain" - absolutely not; there's not many images that do that, and I'd never say I'm confident that anything will do so beforehand. In fact what happens in various noms I often find mind-boggling. My point really is, say pick the best one, nominate it, see how it goes. If it passes there may be few that could get through, if not, it's probably not worth pursuing. But at least the nominator/contributor will get an idea of whether any of these are regarded by the community as meeting the FPC criteria without the confusion brought about by nomming the set. On the other hand, many contributors avoid nomming at FPC for good reasons. But FP star or not, they're still great for the 'pedia. --jjron (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're being honest but IMO the problem is that I don't think any of those who advised Laura to nominate looked at them closely. Elsewhere, someone recommended Gemma as a single nom. Now she's a pretty girl, and it looks ok at preview size, but when you open it then you see it clearly isn't in focus (very obvious when compared to many of the others which are sharp) so would be a clear fail. A screenful of pretty girls and the boy's are going "What's not to like, nom the set". Is that what happened? You and I might have thick enough skin to "nominate it, see how it goes" but others apparently don't. Colin°Talk 07:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons if there's no policy for something, we often start referring to en-wiki policy... so maybe en-wiki might like to take a look at commons ideas on sets (commons:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates... I'm biased, I wrote them):

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
  • If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • All images should be of high technical quality.

--99of9 (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the majority would pass FP on their own. Commons would not be too happy about the downsampling either. Wrt your criteria, how would the third rule interact with WP's requirement to have all images in an article. For example, if some of the women above didn't have articles? Or if you had individual photos of a pop group, but only the lead singer's photo appeared in any article? Would you drop that rule for sets? Colin°Talk 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "majority FP" is for unlimited sets (e.g. a sequence of a wasp laying an egg), because there you have much more control over shot selection etc. But maybe en-wiki would prefer to make a majority rule on all sets (similar to featured topics)? I'm not sure what the best usage criteria would be, but I'm sure something is required. (Personally I'd ditch the assistant coaches.) --99of9 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination closure timer seems to have gone screwy on this, saying the voting period is already over (five days too early) so I've removed it. Please manually note closing time. --jjron (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. Great contribution to WP, but individually it seems clear many of these would not pass FPC on their own, and that should be a baseline (or else we really need to reconsider all our criteria and judgements). As a 'set' they lack some basics such as being cropped to consistent dimensions; easily fixed, perhaps, but not there now. Would reconsider individually nommed images. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mostly agree with jjron. These don't really have the EV necessary to pass separately (action shots would be far superior), and they're not being used as a set. Sets make sense when all the images are used in the same article, but that's not the case here. Lots of minor issues too (focus, composition, etc.). Makeemlighter (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least the two assistant coaches, partly because they're tangential/non-notable, but partly because they both have composition problems (too tall?). I'm also waiting for the exposure adjustment. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's another Australia picture. Too many Australia pictures on the front page. Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I opposed, but this one is straightforward on numbers and nobody has closed it in 2.5 days. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A classic kick a man while he is down. Like fucking hello, I stated that I couldn't do the work needed within the FPC time frame and what happens? The FPC is continued even though, at no fault of my own, I had no chance to make the corrections. I was evacuated and also hospitalised, so I've only just started coming back online and still getting everything back in order. Too bad if my place was flooded, since you continued as if nothing was going on and I was out of action (unable to do anything). I've put a lot of time into both projects but what is the point when the FP clan (reason why FPC needs to be independent from FP contributors) already has its mind set? I'm upset and pissed off, I've put in a lot of time and money into thing things I do and I get crap. Get over yourself over me downsizing my photographs, be happy that I've donated them and stop your bitching. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bidgee, we are happy you donated them and are grateful for the time and effort you've put into them. They are a valuable contribution to WP. The adjustments that I believed were pending (having the coaches match brightness with the players and making all the pics square) are still useful changes but wouldn't be enough to change my position. I hope you continue to make photos for WP because the important thing is the contributions to content, not the opinions of a random small set of people. I'm sorry to hear you've had problems IRL. We're judging the photographs. If you want a gold star for effort and uncritical praise, then go show them to your mum. Colin°Talk 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If you want a gold star for effort and uncritical praise, then go show them to your mum." How fucking insulting and clearly proves the whole FPC is just set by those who think they know it all, well fuck you. Bidgee (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Colin, the final sentence of that comment, both the tone and the comment, was completely unnecessary. Please put a little more thought into your comments in the future and refrain from doing that again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
          • I have to agree, that was beyond uncivil. Any technical changes necessary for FP status, if Bidgee is inclined to make them, can be done at his leisure; personal safety and well-being comes first. Bidgee, glad you're safe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • They were harsh comments, I agree. Not nice. But hardly "beyond uncivil" and considerably milder than the language they were responding to. Do you disagree that Laura and Bidgee were campaining for this FP on the basis of the effort put into it? Do you disagree that Bidgee hasn't handled criticism well (e.g., his response to the downsampling issue). As for pending technical changes? Focus. Subject looking at the camera. Choosing an appropriate lens/distance. Separation from the background. Making sure the background is tall enough. These things aren't "technical changes" that would make this an FP. Colin°Talk 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You started out really well, until you closed with that patronising *******... Have you ever tried to arrange for an entire team to agree to let you photograph them, with the knowledge that those pictures would be free for everyone to use? Just the negotiations would be enough to wear me thin. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You are falling into the same trap. Bidgee and Laura's contributions to the encyclopeadia is one thing, and nominating pictures for FP is another. If you want to reward the first (which is far more important) then give them a barnstar. If you want to read comments that are "beyond uncivil" then just read Bidgee's postings today. Our review comments are "crap" and so much "bitching". We're all one big FP cabal. And we can go **** ourselves. Colin°Talk 12:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can't say I blame him, although a wikibreak may be necessary. A little tact would be nice, especially when one knows the other person is under stress. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Regardless of the stress the person is under, they have to understand that FPC is a process that tries to be as objective and sanitised as possible in order to get to the essence of what makes a useful photo. I occasionally get snappy when I think that voters have little understanding of what they're voting on, but I don't think that it's necessarily the case here. It is irrelevant how much effort went into the photo (within reason) if the quality is not up to FP standards. Colin's final comment, while inflammatory, did make a valid point that Bidgee failed to take on board. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Australia_women%27s_national_water_polo_team_set&oldid=1138493155"