208:
picture of, say, a famous musician, it's still just me saying that's who it is and someone else verifying by googling the musician's name and giving it their best judgment. We can't submit our own photos if we take a very strict view of V/OR here. On
Commons, there aren't many people who regularly check nominees for accuracy. Charles is one. I would only typically scrutinize ID if what's written strikes me as amiss (but if it's outside North America, it probably wouldn't seem amiss to me beyond the level of order). Happy to take a look when the link works, though. :) —
1122:- I find this logic really strange. What's the difference? Either the picture illustrates the subject (or some aspect of the subject) well or it doesn't. A good picture of a lizard illustrates that species regardless of whether it's a one-sentence stub or a FA. I suppose the tethering of FP to the state of a specific article at a specific point in time, making it dependent on text that could change at any moment, as well as connecting it to the main page, will necessarily invite idiosyncratic criteria that have nothing to do with the image. —
372:
including
Commons and Flickr. I look up the likely species in a field guide, trying to establish subspecies, sex, plumage, form, age (e.g. juvenile) etc. I always buy the best field guide I can for the territory. I check id on birdsoftheworld. I do not find iNaturalist reliable. I search reliable private websites for the territory (like sharpphotography!!). I contact known experts if really stuck. This is easier for me as I contribute free images to field guides. Every year I have to correct the identifications of a handful of my images.
115:
348:
771:
those who curate the main page/POTD want to require a page to be start class+ (for example), that doesn't need to affect FPC. Approve the image, and if the article hasn't been improved by the time POTD comes around, either someone can improve the article a bit to make it compliant or we can find another POTD. Refusing to promote it because of the
989:
Sca's opposes aren't confined to stubs, he also opposes or objects to anything he doesn't like to see on the main-page, such as computer games, math and science images, anything he finds unsuitable for the main-page. I doubt changing the rules will fix it; the rules have been working for years. Let's
488:
ground to complain, if the article is recent, or if there's doubts about notability. The usage requirement has a certain amount of "the article it's used in shouldn't be in risk of not being there in a month" implied. But the standards should be pretty low. Enough that it's not at risk of an upmerge,
1221:
Looks like we had a couple manual archives ("archive 1" and "archive 2") that were more than a decade old, but the only ones in the archivebox. Then we had one other that was being autoarchived, "Archive 1". I've merged the first two into the latter and replaced the archives box with talk header. —
1093:. If the article concerned is just a stub, it's hard to see what difference a pretty picture is going to make to it, so I think FP contributors should expand the article at the same time to make it clear why the picture is relevant. But evidently your interpretation of that is different to mine. —
241:
It sure looks like a house finch to me. Streaking under the wing, color of the cheeks, and overall hue suggest house rather than purple finch, which is the main other species house finches get mixed up with around these parts. As for whether it's a FP on enwp, I'd defer to those who are more active
511:
is an 1945 book by F. Bar, part of his 'Quirky
Customary Practices' series." - all of which would likely be in the author's article. Likewise, it needs to overcome the general notability guideline enough to not be at risk of deletion, and should probably have one decent source. In other words, the
1088:
You want to topic ban someone just because they have a different opinion from you? My "admin opinion" is that the rules should be clarified if there's some uncertainty about how they should be applied, rather than labelling a difference of opinion as a behavioural issue. Personally I think it is
770:
Putting aside TRM's issues, I think it's a mistake to import the challenges of the POTD blurb into an evaluation of the image at FPC. With the time between promotion at FPC and appearance on the main page, the article could've gone through many changes and would need to be checked out anyway. If
305:
Yes, I've been contributing to iNaturalist for a while myself and can confirm that their reviews are helpful (although I learned more by asking the biologists on the German
Knowledge (XXG) because they're most often willing to answer follow-up questions). Other than that, I just looked the House
374:
The other relevant issue is submitting an image to FP on
Knowledge (XXG). I submit potential FPs to FP at Commons first, so that technical quality is OK, then the issue here is usually about encyclopaedic value. Your image would not pass FP at Commons and might struggle at QI, which is where FP
371:
Roy, this is an easy bird to identify as others have said. Identification can be very time-consuming. LBJs (Little Brown Jobs) are a nightmare. This is how I work. If I'm in the field I ask a nearby birder or guide. I check birding websites to see what was around that day. I check the internet,
207:
can you check the link? It's not working for me (permission). I may not be the best person to answer, as I find enwp's featured picture process/criteria to be rather cumbersome and inconsistently applied, but certainly it's true that some OR is typically required of the photos. Even if I take a
515:
Secondly, the requirement for EV does provide article requirements in some cases. If you want to have an animal's headshot in a well-illustrated article and get it to FP, you probably need at least a couple sentences describing the head anatomy. The image should feel like a natural part of the
944:
which specifically addresses FPs whose articles aren't good enough for main-page. It says: "Not all featured pictures will be scheduled for POTD. (...) if the article chosen to accompany the picture is not up to scratch (...), the appearance may be delayed until there is a suitable article to
268:). Usually, you'll get an answer within 24 hours and I'm more than happy to ask about your finch image if you'd like me to (requires the image to be on Commons; don't worry about the file name, I'm a file mover and we can fix that later). Other than that I'm subscribed to Cornell's
326:). Now, the House Finch differs from the Purple Finch by "lack of heavy carotenoid coloration on nape, back, and wing coverts", and from Cassin's Finch "by heavy ventral streaking and lack of distinctive back streaks." – So, I'd say you assessment is correct, its an adult male
566:... *ahem* I would, of course, support removing article-related criticisms from assessments of images unless there's an active deletion or merge discussion (in other words, just saying it should be deleted should be insufficient -- start an RM or AfD if you feel that way). —
526:
Now, if you want it to get on the main page, that's another question, and the poor article quality might push it out of consideration until there's enough structure there to make a blurb, and have a reasonable linked article, but that's separate.
1150:, which manifests itself in slow and persistent disruption: frustrates participants including newbies, weighs on participation, sinks nominations in certain categories. He says no to doing something to revise the FP criteria
151:
and nominating it for FP. I'm reasonably sure it meets the technical criteria, but I'm unclear on how to show it meets "Is verifiable". To the best of my knowledge, it's an adult male house finch, but that's basically
286:
A few people have recommended this resource on dewp to me. It sounds much more functional than what I had originally tried: asking on a
Commons Village Pump. :) I tend to use the "/r/whatsthisbird" subreddit, but
940:- The word "main-page" does not appear in the FP criteria. Therefore FP candidates cannot be opposed based on main-page suitability/quality requirements/etc. The guideline for appearance on the main-page is at
156:, as I'm not an acknowledged expert on bird identification. On the other hand, that seems to be the norm with "own work" FPs of animals, of which there are many. So how does this actually work? --
598:
This is indented under my comment, but I don't see how it's a reply to what I wrote? Unless you're saying that "don't make up your own rules" or "let's refine the rules" = censorship (???). —
39:
225:, Sigh. Flickr can be so stupid sometimes. Apparently, by default, making an album public doesn't make each individual image in it public. I think it's fixed now, but just in case,
260:
Hi Roy, whenever I have issues identifying a species, I ask the biologists on the German
Knowledge (XXG) (my main wiki). They've created a super helpful system, which you can find at
102:
98:
106:
463:
Images submitted for FP have been opposed because they are in stub articles. There is currently no requirement for article length/quality. We should clarify the rules.
709:
At Wiki, all users are free to post their thoughts and opinions without fear of censorship or alteration – unless they are demonstratively shown to be engaged in
699:
articles of less than 300 or so words often are criticized, and sometimes rejected, as "stubs," i.e. too brief for MP posting. This won't change because someone
74:
626:
I understand now. I didn't mean editing someone else's comment to remove the criticism. I mean "remove" abstractly, as in "remove them from the equation". —
941:
425:, Heh, I was waiting for somebody to ask that :-) No, it's just a white fence about 30 feet behind the bird that just got DOF'd out of existence. --
80:
516:
article, not mere filler. In short, the image needs to have EV in the article as it stands, and needs to have more of some type of EV - showing
1179:'s reply is not well informed. Sometimes an image is all we have to illustrate rare species. If you are to call the image in this stub article
24:
261:
375:
candidates should be tested first. FP image candidates have to have been on
Knowledge (XXG) for 7 days - they are often the lead image.
1140:
832:
20:
69:
60:
753:
335:
277:
990:
hear from others. I am pinging the participants in this thread and the more frequent FP participants of recent past:
1147:
114:
93:
148:
125:
291:
presented to WikiWednesday yesterday making pretty strong argument to get on the iNaturalist train, too. :) —
1192:
1079:
976:
896:
551:
472:
442:
413:
380:
505:." - which is all material one might expect to see in the genus article's listing of species. Similarly, "
344:
331:
273:
175:
50:
1033:
65:
129:
1231:
1224:
1196:
1180:
1167:
1131:
1124:
1102:
1083:
1065:
1058:
1047:
1029:
1001:
980:
954:
900:
814:
784:
777:
765:
736:
667:
635:
628:
621:
607:
600:
593:
575:
568:
555:
541:
512:
article must be sufficiently good that it is not at risk of disappearing through merge or deletion.
476:
446:
432:
417:
399:
384:
358:
339:
300:
293:
281:
251:
244:
236:
226:
222:
217:
210:
195:
179:
163:
749:
1188:
1075:
993:
972:
908:
892:
547:
468:
438:
429:
422:
409:
396:
389:
376:
355:
233:
192:
183:
160:
130:
696:
523:
Once it's passed those minimum standards, and especially if it's well beyond them, then I agree.
584:
At
Knowledge (XXG),censorship or alteration of other users' comments is strictly prohibited. –
1163:
1098:
1056:
True. A topic ban for Sca would head off many of these "is X really a valid vote" threads. —
1043:
1025:
997:
950:
929:
925:
663:
530:
46:
917:
790:
714:
690:
1184:
501:
171:
127:
1118:- when the "different opinion" is a years-long habitual disregard for these criteria, yes.
913:
801:. The "challenges," i.e. POTD criteria, aren't being "imported," they're already in effect
798:
724:
718:
710:
704:
700:
686:
484:
I agree with the spirit of your suggestion, but not how it's written: I'd say that there's
319:
536:
153:
288:
945:
accompany the picture." Again, FPC and POTD are different processes. FPC is not POTD.
1021:
810:
761:
732:
617:
589:
426:
405:
393:
352:
230:
202:
189:
157:
1176:
1159:
1094:
1039:
1005:
964:
946:
659:
311:
1116:
You want to topic ban someone just because they have a different opinion from you?
1090:
1017:
1013:
920:
are different processes; their article quality requirements aren't identical.
546:
Thanks, I agree. This is is not about POTD where requirements are stricter.
347:, Thanks very much. I uploaded a few from that album a while ago. I think
1074:
In the light of the two comments above, how does one get an admin opinion?
932:). If the article quality is good enough for FP criterion 5 and 6 to pass,
797:
on the main page. There's no separate category for non-POTD nominations at
1009:
968:
806:
757:
728:
653:
613:
585:
1120:
it's hard to see what difference a pretty picture is going to make to it
868:
because of the poor quality of the article(s) or because they are stubs
1089:
legitimate to reject an FP if the article is a stub, per criterion #5:
745:
489:
so just a half-decent stub that says more than - as a rough example. "
934:
then the article quality is good enough for the FP nomination to pass
467:
An image cannot be opposed because of the quality of the article(s)
967:. But either we change the rules or we need to stop voters (like
693:(POTD), and thus are theoretically candidates for the main page.
794:
695:
The main page has its own parameters and practices. Notably, at
971:) opposing on the basis of stub articles. Please can you vote.
891:
If the votes are tied after two weeks (15 August) I will vote.
131:
15:
756:), which providentially bears quite directly on the above. –
392:, Thank you for your help. I've nominated this for QI. --
1155:
1151:
1144:
1137:
924:- The word "article" appears a total of 5 times in the
465:
I would support the following addition to FPC Criteria:
437:
Try for a natural perch and a natural background...
1091:"Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article"
272:
and could check the species there as well. Best, --
775:status, long before it's POTD, doesn't help. —
520:thing off better than the other images therein.
408:? The bird looks as if it has been 'cut out'.
8:
612:Re "removing article-related criticisms." –
793:nominations are perforce candidates for a
841:because of the quality of the article(s)
717:, for which there are due administrative
1187:"pretty pictures" would be insulting.
1119:
1115:
310:and the only similar species are the
7:
833:the argument on a current nomination
143:What makes a bird photo verifiable?
23:for discussing improvements to the
1136:Sca doesn't go by the FP criteria
14:
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
707:posts there (there being here).
680:As the category's name denotes,
113:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
404:Is the background artificial,
1:
689:are pro forma candidates for
262:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung
37:Put new text under old text.
752:of the POTD for May 29 (the
499:, is a mollusk in the genus
687:Featured Picture candidates
1247:
1232:00:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1197:14:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
1168:03:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
1132:17:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1103:14:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1084:13:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1066:23:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
1048:23:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
981:21:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
955:20:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
901:16:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
658:who brings this up often.
447:15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
433:15:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
418:15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
400:14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
385:09:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
359:02:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
340:02:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
301:02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
282:02:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
252:02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
237:02:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
218:01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
196:01:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
164:22:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
147:I'm thinking of uploading
754:Coat of Arms of Wisconsin
188:any thoughts on this? --
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
25:Featured picture criteria
815:14:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
785:13:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
766:13:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
737:16:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
668:14:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
636:16:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
622:16:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
608:15:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
594:15:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
744:Recommended reading: A
576:19:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
556:19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
542:18:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
477:11:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
535:Has about 7.7% of all
70:avoid personal attacks
703:what someone else at
351:should find them. --
227:here's the album link
107:Auto-archiving period
1185:this one from Rwanda
328:Haemorhous mexicanus
1181:Hemiolaus_cobaltina
835:, I propose a vote:
791:Picture of the Day
711:disruptive editing
691:Picture of the Day
308:Birds of the World
270:Birds of the World
81:dispute resolution
42:
963:Yes, yes, I know
930:criterion 5 and 6
839:cannot be opposed
565:
345:Frank Schulenburg
332:Frank Schulenburg
274:Frank Schulenburg
176:Frank Schulenburg
149:this photo I took
138:
137:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1238:
1229:
1227:
1129:
1127:
1092:
1063:
1061:
1037:
1034:Andrew J.Kurbiko
912:
789:Once again, all
782:
780:
657:
633:
631:
605:
603:
573:
571:
564:
540:
298:
296:
264:("Bestimmung" =
249:
247:
215:
213:
206:
187:
132:
118:
117:
108:
16:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1225:
1223:
1219:
1125:
1123:
1059:
1057:
991:
942:POTD guidelines
906:
778:
776:
651:
629:
627:
601:
599:
569:
567:
539:
528:
461:
294:
292:
245:
243:
211:
209:
200:
169:
145:
134:
133:
128:
105:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1244:
1242:
1226:Rhododendrites
1218:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1171:
1170:
1134:
1126:Rhododendrites
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1069:
1068:
1060:Rhododendrites
1051:
1050:
1030:Mydreamsparrow
1002:Rhododendrites
984:
983:
958:
957:
889:
888:
882:
876:
866:can be opposed
862:
861:
855:
849:
836:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
779:Rhododendrites
722:
721:for solution.
708:
694:
673:
672:
671:
670:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
630:Rhododendrites
602:Rhododendrites
570:Rhododendrites
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
534:
524:
521:
513:
508:The Bar of Foo
466:
464:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
402:
373:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
320:Cassin's Finch
295:Rhododendrites
266:Identification
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
246:Rhododendrites
223:Rhododendrites
212:Rhododendrites
180:Rhododendrites
144:
141:
136:
135:
126:
124:
123:
120:
119:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1243:
1234:
1233:
1228:
1216:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:Charlesjsharp
1186:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1133:
1128:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:Charlesjsharp
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
994:Charlesjsharp
988:
987:
986:
985:
982:
978:
974:
973:Charlesjsharp
970:
966:
962:
961:
960:
959:
956:
952:
948:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
910:
909:Charlesjsharp
905:
904:
903:
902:
898:
894:
893:Charlesjsharp
886:
883:
880:
877:
874:
871:
870:
869:
867:
859:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
843:
842:
840:
834:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
781:
774:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
720:
716:
712:
706:
702:
698:
692:
688:
685:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
669:
665:
661:
655:
649:
637:
632:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
604:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
572:
563:
557:
553:
549:
548:Charlesjsharp
545:
544:
543:
538:
533:
532:
525:
522:
519:
514:
510:
509:
504:
503:
498:
494:
493:
492:Fooius barium
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
469:Charlesjsharp
459:Stub articles
458:
448:
444:
440:
439:Charlesjsharp
436:
435:
434:
431:
428:
424:
423:Charlesjsharp
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
410:Charlesjsharp
407:
403:
401:
398:
395:
391:
390:Charlesjsharp
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
377:Charlesjsharp
370:
360:
357:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
303:
302:
297:
290:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
253:
248:
240:
239:
238:
235:
232:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
214:
204:
199:
198:
197:
194:
191:
185:
184:Charlesjsharp
181:
177:
173:
168:
167:
166:
165:
162:
159:
155:
150:
142:
140:
122:
121:
116:
112:
104:
100:
97:
95:
91:
90:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1220:
1026:TheFreeWorld
998:Adam Cuerden
937:
933:
921:
890:
884:
878:
872:
865:
863:
857:
851:
845:
838:
831:Beacause of
830:
802:
772:
741:
701:doesn't like
682:
681:
531:Adam Cuerden
529:
517:
507:
506:
500:
496:
491:
490:
485:
462:
327:
323:
316:C. purpureus
315:
312:Purple Finch
307:
306:Finch up on
269:
265:
146:
139:
110:
92:
19:This is the
926:FP criteria
887:please sign
881:please sign
875:please sign
860:please sign
854:please sign
848:please sign
497:Great Fubar
349:this search
242:here. :) —
172:JJ Harrison
746:discussion
324:C. cassini
318:) and the
1217:Archiving
864:An image
837:An image
750:WP:ERRORS
719:processes
715:vandalism
495:, or the
330:. Best --
289:Invertzoo
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
1022:Armbrust
969:User:Sca
650:Pinging
427:RoySmith
394:RoySmith
353:RoySmith
231:RoySmith
203:RoySmith
190:RoySmith
158:RoySmith
94:Archives
51:get help
1177:Amakuru
1160:Bammesk
1095:Amakuru
1040:Bammesk
1032:, and
1006:Tomer T
965:Bammesk
947:Bammesk
885:Support
879:Support
873:Support
858:Support
852:Support
846:Support
773:current
660:Tomer T
182:, and
111:90 days
938:Note 2
922:Note 1
799:WP:FPC
725:WP:AGF
705:WP:FPC
502:Fooius
430:(talk)
397:(talk)
356:(talk)
234:(talk)
193:(talk)
161:(talk)
1183:, or
1156:diff4
1152:diff3
1145:diff2
1138:diff1
1018:Janke
1014:MER-C
928:(see
803:here.
697:ITN/C
229:. --
154:WP:OR
79:Seek
27:page.
1193:talk
1164:talk
1148:nom2
1141:nom1
1099:talk
1080:talk
1044:talk
977:talk
951:talk
918:POTD
916:and
897:talk
811:talk
795:POTD
762:talk
733:talk
664:talk
618:talk
590:talk
552:talk
518:some
486:some
473:talk
443:talk
414:talk
381:talk
336:talk
278:talk
68:and
1230:\\
1130:\\
1064:\\
1010:Sca
914:FPC
807:Sca
783:\\
758:Sca
748:at
742:PS:
729:Sca
713:or
683:all
654:Sca
634:\\
614:Sca
606:\\
586:Sca
574:\\
537:FPs
406:Roy
299:\\
250:\\
216:\\
1195:)
1166:)
1158:.
1154:,
1143:,
1101:)
1082:)
1046:)
1038:.
1028:,
1024:,
1020:,
1016:,
1012:,
1008:,
1004:,
1000:,
996:,
979:)
953:)
936:.
899:)
813:)
805:–
764:)
735:)
727:–
723:—
666:)
620:)
592:)
554:)
475:)
445:)
416:)
383:)
338:)
280:)
178:,
174:,
109::
101:,
49:;
1191:(
1162:(
1097:(
1078:(
1042:(
1036::
992:@
975:(
949:(
911::
907:@
895:(
809:(
760:(
731:(
662:(
656::
652:@
616:(
588:(
550:(
471:(
441:(
412:(
379:(
334:(
322:(
314:(
276:(
205::
201:@
186::
170:@
103:2
99:1
96::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
