Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anhäuser Mauer.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Anhäuser Mauer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2011 at 10:51:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Anhäuser Mauer, wall from a former monastery.
  • I guess WLM is not just about only FP's, there are other qualities juries might search for in a picture (the proffesional photographers view is very different, and technical quality is sometimes put as second important), see also the pictures that won in WLM 2010 (nl). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the overall quality of the WLM known winners (here), from five contries, very disappointing and hope that the same does not happen with the remaining countries. That is of course the result of the extremely poor average quality of the uploaded pictures, many of them (not to say the majority) being close to trash. In my opinion the incentive made by the national organizers to upload as many pictures as possible is to blame. A shame, really. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10% more of the 60.000 monuments in the netherlands got an average picture, so now 60% of all monuments are covered. Some pictures are trash, but more then 90% is just acceptable quality. Not everything is a featured picture, or intented to be one. And as said before, some of the jury also look to other things then just technical quality. I think that saying most is trash just means you haven't looked good enough. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dutch results are on my computer, you'll see them on 5 november, but we were talking about average quality, so the 50 best are not that interesting for that discussion. I don't think the dutch pictures are so much better then other countries on average. I've seen a lot of wonderfull pictures in for example Portugal and France as well. And in all that quantity in Germany there must be something wonderfull as well. Indeed quantity was an important aspect of the competion, you've to make it if you want to cover all those tens of thousands of monuments, but what if you would ask users to only upload good pictures? All that will happen is that you get less pictures, you wont get more good ones. I agree that it's hard to find the better ones between all the average ones (6 out of 10). I'll publish my selections of 1000, 250 and 100 best dutch pictures (IMO) after 5 nov. I would like some input after that, what others think about it, how many are suitable for for example FP or QI. I guess watching the short lists gives a much better impression on quality. I can link you to last years selections from me: User:Basvb/WLM (many of those QI), and User:Basvb/500 (everything catching the eye, also some bad quality here that's on purpose). And then I would like to ask you a list of monuments, to see how the pictures are used, because the thing is that they have to illustrate the monument, most of the pictures do not intent to be of the best quality (it's quite hard to make 60.000 very good quality images). The focus is still on getting good coverage. And people like me wont be able to upload those wonderfull perfect pictures, so then people like me can better focus on getting a lot of the monuments a picture. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it would have been possible to increase the average quality without affecting the monument coverage, by limiting the number of photos per monument, per user. When browsing through the photos of my own country I realized that many users (especially those with an astronomical number of images) took several photos of the same monument, most of them substandard, as if they wished to break some kind of record. It is amazingly high the number of shots made with the camera pointing upward (most of times a compact camera with a small focal distance), from a short distance of the monument, suggesting that they were made "on the move", without the slightest concern for quality. I'm sure we need more inteligence (or just some common sense) in the way the contest is organized, and not only by limiting the number of images. For example, by agreeing on a didactic text, common to all countries, were some basic principles are stated and explained with examples. And, of course, a set of common requirements used for: (i) rapidly browsing through the whole sets and promptly eliminate the photos not respecting those principles; (ii) helping the jury to chose the best photos on the basis of some agreed critera: ev, image quality, artistic value, size, absence of obvious manipulations, etc., whatever it is considered relevant. It is my conviction that a great improvement on the quality of the contributions could be achieved by implementing very simple measures, like the ones I have suggested. Btw, why very few of the best Commons' photographers have participated in the contest? Maybe because they didn't consider the model serious enough! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well myself I've made 100 pictures of some monuments (e.g a castle) from all different corners and every corner in the building. I think it gives a nice overview for the castle, and I think an extra picture isn't preventing another one from being uploaded, you can always choose not to use a picture on commons, but you can't choose to use a picture which is not on commons... I think a lot of rules and warnings for participants just makes the things (as usual) only more complicated, thus only resulting in less pictures, not in better ones. Part of the goal from the contest was to give new users an easy chance to contribute to Wikipedia. That people do not want to participate on forhand is their own choice, and I don't think it has much to do about what they think of the model, I think it has more to do with the fact that they don't find it nice to compete for prices, but prefer just to upload without competition and prices (they want to do real voluntairy work). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting to experience what "other things" was the basis for a image competition than image criteria. And it is undoubtful that there were a couple of pictures clearly reasonable for the 1. place than this picture is. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, well look to the picture which won in the Netherlands last year, that for sure wasn't the picture with the best technical quality, but it had character. Something happend there, it told a story. A lot of people said the winner was crap/shouldn't have won. But some proffesional photographers said as first response to the results: wow what a nice picture with a good story. (It's difficult for me to explain in English exactly. Other question: Wladyslaw, which pictures in the (german) top 100 do you think should have won (or are suitable for FP (then you'll see nominations :P)), or do you think the winners are not in the top-100? I can't ask you to watch 32.000 images :P, althought I must say I learned a lot of those hours I spend watching all the 13000 dutch pictures. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not possible to identify those "other things" because no common evaluation criteria existed! Each country had complete autonomy and I very much doubt that such criteria were established in each of them, before the evaluation started! - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can explain these other things, but just in Dutch. Indeed each country had autonomy, althought there where some basic rules, I guess more rules would have ment worse coöperation between the countries, althought it could be considered. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anhäuser_Mauer.jpg&oldid=62039093"