User:KDS4444/Featured picture criteria for diagrams

The criteria for what qualities constitutes a feature picture are somewhat different if the image is a diagram rather than a photograph. The following guidelines are intended to help feature picture reviewers assess whether or not a diagram should become one of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures.

Minimum criteria

Here are some qualities that all feature picture diagrams should have at a minimum before receiving your Support vote.

Accuracy

Is the diagram basically accurate? Do annotation lines and arrows point to the correct parts? Are the labels correct? Is it missing any elements that seem like they might be important for the article in which the diagram is located? A diagram of a heart that is missing a label for a left ventricle or with the label in the wrong place or pointing to the wrong part maybe should not get your support vote. No one expects every reviewer to be an expert on the subject of a given diagram, but expertise can be very helpful and should be applied whenever possible to identify inaccuracies.

Legibility

Can you see where the annotation lines go? Can you tell which lines go where and indicate what? Is the image cluttered with too much information or is it so sparse that it doesn't really show us anything? Are the lines closely and obviously associated with their corresponding words? Are the labels easy to read? A good diagram should be complete without overreaching its objectives and becoming bogged down in its own details. Also, elaborate or decorative fonts do not contribute to encyclopedic value and are discouraged. The font used should be one which is freely licensed and sans-serif. Deja-vu sans is a good choice, though there are others.

Consistency & simplicity

Is the formatting of the diagram consistent? If the image uses different fonts in different places, is this done for a reason? Are the annotation lines the same thickness and color (or, if they vary, do they vary for a reason?)? Nothing about a diagram should be irregular without there being a reason for it. Is there a distracting background? Are there parts which are unlabeled but which look like they should be? Can you look at any part of the object being diagrammed and not know what annotation line it is associated with? Sometimes artists forget that their annotation lines point to very small things which no one but them is going to understand is that very small thing. There should be no mysteries in a good diagram. Everything you see you should be able to identify, even as a non-expert (most Wikipedia viewers are going to be non-experts).

SVG formatting

While there is no rule that all diagrams must be in SVG format in order to be considered candidates for Featured Picture, the substantial benefits of this format (which are explained elsewhere) over other graphic formats such as JPEGs and bitmaps means that we strongly prefer our featured diagrams to have been created in scalable vector format. If an diagram is not in this format, does the author or nominator provide a sound and justifiable explanation as to why? Can you as a reviewer see any reason why a given image could NOT have been made in this format?

Proportions and size

Beyond its labels and lines, a diagram usually has some visual "content". Does that content look proportional? Does it look like the artist contributed the effort to make the diagram look like its parts all go together? Is the head the right size for the body, as it were? Not all Featured Pictured diagrams need to be done using precision 3-D graphics rendering programs, but they should illustrate their subjects in a way which is at least not misleading to the viewer (unless some alteration in proportion is perhaps done by the artist intentionally for reasons that are obvious within the larger image). As an SVG image (and unlike photographs), the actual dimensions of the image are considered irrelevant, of course.

Consistency when rendering in different browsers

Sometimes an SVG image will render differently depending on what browser the person viewing it is using. Often this has to do with the way browsers handle SVG symbols, special effects, and fonts. A Feature Picture diagram should be checked to make sure that it looks the same whether viewed in Internet Explorer or Firefox or Google Chrome, and if inconsistencies are noted, then the nominator should be notified and your Support vote perhaps withheld until the problem is fixed.

Rasters

Many SVG programs incidentally generate raster components when they produce a final draft of the SVG file. Adobe Illustrator, for example, is well-known for this particular habit. A Feature Picture candidate should be free of raster elements so that it is truly and completely scalable, and reviewers should consider verifying this before offering Support votes.

W3C check

Although not a requirement, a check to see of the diagram passes W3C validity is almost always a good idea. This ensures that the image will render without errors in a wide variety of browsers and programs A W3C check is easy and fast, and most artists perform this themselves before they submit diagrams for consideration for Featured Picture.

The obvious things

Just as with photographs, a diagram, to become a Featured Picture, should be freely licensed and should include no watermarks or other irrelevant graphic "signatures".

The foregoing list is meant to give a reviewer a basic set of tools to determine if a candidate for Featured Picture status that is a diagram might not be worth supporting (or might be worth supporting "conditional upon seeing certain changes" which you, the reviewer, then list so that the artist can address your concerns— diagrams are generally much more fluid than photographs, and most illustrators are more than happy to meet reasonable reviewer requests). Some things which will NOT be helpful in an "oppose" review of a diagram will include comments such as, "I don't think this image is ....".

Moving from indifference or Oppose to Support

Even a diagram that meets all these basic criteria might still not be a good candidate for becoming a Featured Picture on Wikipedia. What are the qualities an image should have that should not only mean you do not vote "oppose" but that you actively decide to vote "support"?

Is the image interesting somehow?

Does the diagram make you curious? Has the artist represented his or her subject in a way that makes you say, "Ah HA! So THAT'S where that thing is located!" Does the image make you feel like looking up one of the associated articles to learn more about the subject of the diagram? This is a good sign that it may be worthy of becoming a Featured Picture.

Is the image "text book" quality?

Any diagram that is going to become a Featured Picture on Wikipedia should look like it was lifted from the pages of a professional text book. Does this image fall into that category of images? Does it look like the work of a professional? Does it have, in the words of Featured Picture lingo, high "encyclopedic value"?

The diagram voting process

There are two ways that any image— photograph or diagram— can fail to become a featured picture. It can either receive too many Oppose votes relative to its Support votes (community disagreement), or it can simply fail to receive the minimum number of Support votes, even with no Oppose votes (community indifference). A diagram that you feel is just not all that good is perhaps unlikely to garner enough outright support votes on its own from anyone to make it to Featured Picture. Consider that sometimes it may be better to let your inaction by expressing no vote at all speak more politely than registering a formal "Oppose" vote where all such a vote can do is cause bad feelings. There is a great deal of ego at risk for any artist, even an experienced one, offering up his or her work for public criticism, and it is sometimes much kinder to ignore what you feel is a mediocre diagram candidate than to vocally oppose its nomination. This allows the nomination to fail quietly on its own terms. On the other hand, if you see a diagram getting a lot of what you see as unwarranted support and you have good cause to oppose its candidacy, then by all means you should feel welcome to step in and say so and explain your opposition. We do not want mediocre images to become Featured Pictures— once they do, the label cannot easily be undone. You should use equal enthusiasm to vote to support an image that you can see is about to fail but in your view should not: we don't want to miss the chance to have a good featured picture diagram any more than we want to promote diagrams that don't really make the cut.

As you vote, please keep this in mind: it is very easy to sour the pot before it is done cooking. Offering up an "Oppose" vote at the very beginning of a candidate's nomination will make any subsequent reviewers think twice before offering a vote of support, even if under other circumstances they might have done so. Use such early oppose votes with the greatest of caution, because they frequently torpedo their subjects and neither image nor artist may recover. When it comes to diagrams specifically, it is much kinder and often more effective to offer your support conditional on a number of even dramatic changes than to oppose a new candidate early and outright and without the clearest and most obvious of reasons— diagrams, unlike photographs, can almost always be fixed, and the artist can choose whether or not to fix the image to earn your support or not, but an "Oppose" vote signals that you do not think this diagram, in any revision, is capable of becoming a Featured Picture on Wikipedia. For diagrams, that is very seldom the actual case. Alternatively, you can also make a Comment vote instead of a Support with conditions vote and make your recommended changes there, though the presumption is that if the changes are made, you will switch your comment to a vote of Support before the diagram's candidacy period expires, and you should plan to check back on the image to see if it has meet your conditions before its expiry date arrives.