Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In support of <1000px submissions

The one that got me started...
Awful at 3MP, lovely at 1200 pixels
Fine at the submitted size, would likely not have been promoted at original capture size
This has some of the same issues as the church image but is great at <1000 pixels
The hi-res pic User:Thegreenj is referring to

I would like to propose that the resolution size in criterion 2 be upheld more regularly than it is ignored.
This comment was originally posted by me on the WP:FPC page in defence of this image (opposite)
I'm honestly not just being obtuse when I say I really like this image and think a lot of the oppose comments above are a bit harsh and even off the mark. I'm thinking more of future submissions when I say we shouldn't, and frequently don't, condemn an image because of the manner in which it was nominated (quite often a successful FP will have been edited by contributors here before it made the grade) and yet this one above made the mistake of being submitted too big, nothing else.
Encouraging - even insisting on - 3MP+ submissions is unfair on images which look perfectly good at 1000x750, as this one does. It looks awful at twice the size but I could care less what it looks like twice the size, it's a really nice image at full-screen resolution. I've been looking in here for about six months and seen some travesties of non-promotions based solely on dimensional image size and pixel-level clarity. 1000px is all that is necessary (a) for appreciation purposes and (b) to allow for reasonably sized print repro. 1000 pixels makes for a good 4-6 inch print in repro and looks great on my monitor.
This is why the minimum size guideline is.. 1000pixels.
At this size I can tell the image above is a fine capture made with equipment better-suited to small repro and screen resolution viewing: why insist on pixel-picking at unreasonable magnification, as if 30x40 is the smallest size human beings can perceive for pictoral evaluation purposes? I can think of some very fine images of which that most certainly isn't true.
This rant isn't over, but really do have to go out now.. I'd welcome any comments in the mean time.
mikaultalk 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • (I had an edit coflict with Mick and did not take has new text into account while writing this.) Here's my rant, then. I just want to remind you that pictures that barely meet the guideline are often shot down for just that, and not without good cause. Why should we fix the standard at a low level? Obviously, if a picture cannot be retaken and is low resolution or lower quality, it is an exception. Otherwise, however, why should we let a low quality 3 megapixel image pass when we can get a high quality 3 megapixel image? You seem suggest we keep an artificial minimum to image quality. If the image could be captured at 3 megapixels, somewhat out of focus, soft, and poorly composed, then it must be possible to take a picture at 3 megapixels, in foucus, sharp, and well composed. Why keep the minimum when more is possible? I believe that any image that meets the guidelines but that goes not further should not pass, and that seems to be the way featured picture candidates is currently. 1000 pixels is simply not going to meet the requirements for the next generation of high-definition standards. Furthermore, 1000 pixels will not provide much more detail zoomed in, even at current standards, than is provided in the preview. Just as an example, look at this picture. Sure, it could have been uploaded 1132 by 855 pixel image, and I invite you to downsaple it yourself. Can you see the intricacy of the cloak of the Statue of Freedom? Can you see the lettering on the signs on the first storie doors? Featured demands something extra, not just the minimum. I cannot clearly see your POV, but I would be happy to change my mind if you address the issues that I have just stated. J Are you green? 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll answer your points after my last comment below, for continuity purposes - mikaultalk 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. the Orkney chapel shot, I didn't notice the original and what I'd taken for USM-exaggerated edges actually appears to be the result of clumsy masking, on second viewing, although the crop and tonal tweak is the making of it. There's some chromatic aberration, of course, as you'd expect from a compact. Maybe I like it a tiny bit less than I did (the fact is I have a soft spot for Scottish churches :)) but my point doesn't concern the absolute merits of this particular image, it's the relative demerits of assessing all images against those taken with two thousand dollar optics.
As someone pointed out in another comment on this nom page, there are some good FPs taken on point-and-shoot cameras. There are also many older FPs which are well under the 1000px guideline and which I would strongly oppose any delisting of, for reasons I gave earlier - they do it for me at 6x4, more than they would at 20x16. The church one -tonal correction, mask outline and all- works well enough at 1200pixels to be considered primarily, not incidentally, on its merits as a picture.
FP images like this or this or this (all thumbnailed opposite) just don't cut it at mega-size and are (quite rightly) FP images because they're fine, descriptive photographs, as the one of the church is, at this smaller size. The problem is that the resolutionaries (hehe) are having it their own their way, effectively enforcing a 3MP image size "rule" which subjects less detailed shots to the same misplaced criticism as this one. 3MP+ compact shots look much, much better downsampled to 1200 pixels; it's what they were designed for. You click on the FS file here and instead of a full-screen picture you get a less-than-attractive display of jpeg artifacts, fringing, noise reduction and other in-camera efforts at correcting these issues - correcting them for 1200 pixel display.
- All I'm suggesting is that, with certain exceptions (macro shots, most landscapes and things like maps) 2500 pixels of horizontal resolution should be a nice bonus, not a FP prerequisite, and compact camera submissions should not have to conform to such resolution stipulations. I'm convinced submission quality would be raised, not lowered, if this were more regularly observed and positively encouraged. mikaultalk 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • [Re. thegreenj above:] I probably need to restate my case more clearly and I'm grateful for your comprehensive reply, which will help me do so. Your main points:
1 I'm not arguing to fix the standard at a lower level. I would like to see the current 1000px longest-edge minimum recommendation respected for images which are not suited to higher magnification.
2 A high quality 1MP image is way preferable to a low quality image at 3MP, even if they come from the same source file, which might often be the case. Some images need to be viewed at 3MP resolution, some don't and look awful if they are. If you insist on 3MP uploads, there's no easy way of viewing it at its best, ie. at full-screen size. The most important point I'm trying to make is that Quality is not an exclusive property of resolution. If we wanted to exclude images based on their suitability for A3 enlargement, it would say so in the crtieria. We don't; hence the minimum is set, sensibly, at 1MP. High qualtiy is perfectly feasible at this resolution; see the examples above.
3 I'm not sugesting a minimum quality, I'm arguing in support of the roundly ignored minimum resolution which only has some bearing on quality. High pixel resolution simply isn't the most important factor, IMO, whether we're talking FP or not. Does a Featured Article have to weigh in at 70Kb? Must the greatest paintings always be made on huge canvasses? Can't small be beautiful too?
4 Zooming-in is for nerds ;)) ..seriously, I like to look closely at (some) images as much as the next person, but there are many which are better appreciated sitting back. Viewing distance is a crucial factor in image appreciation. The last competition I entered stipulated 10x8 prints, smaller than the size of my 1024x768 monitor.
5 The image (bottom thumb opposite) you linked to might show the nostril hairs on the guard on the balcony and be beautifully exposed, but it's skewed and it's cropped-off at the bottom, half the lights are off and the image generally is boring and unopportune. It could clearly be reshot a little earlier (for the sky) or made more compelling with some cloud cover or - anything to lift it out of the "ho-hum, another 10MP stich-up" run-of-the-mill. Forgive me, but (like you?) I wouldn't have supported this at 1MP and zooming in to it's awesome mega-detail simply isn't enough to stop me reaching for the "oppose" button. As you say, it's nothing special at 1132 by 855. As I said before, quality is not an exclusive property of resolution and IMO high resolution (or rather, techincal competence) is far from enough for FP.
6 "Featured picture" doesn't and shouldn't mean featured cameras, nor featured optics. "Sharp", "well-exposed" and "high resolution" are things cameras do, often without a great deal of help from a competent operator. Pictures are what photographers make, whether on a Canon 5D with a 2.8 prime or a 100-dollar compact.
mikaultalk 10:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Please have a look at this Ericd 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Good old Ken :o) he does love to go off on one.. he makes some good points about digital capture, one I was only half-aware of (horizontal pixel res was an eye-opener) although typically free with the hyperbole for the most part. Interesting and pertinent argument though, thanks! mikaultalk 11:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement about horizontal pixel res is a bit misleading though. If a 3mp camera has 2000px and 14mp has 4500, thats more than two times the viewable width at the same DPI and of course it is also more than two times larger in height too. In reality, it is 2.25 * 2.25 larger in total area, or almost five times more actual detail, which is what the MP really is. Of course having more MP isn't necessary if you aren't interested in the extra detail available and I will happily concede that most digital camera buyers won't appreciate a higher resolution camera because they'll only ever print 4x6 or display on a low resolution monitor, but that doesn't mean there are real tangible benefits that some people will pay good money for. His points are aimed more at the brainless consumer than the enthusiasts and photographers. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

delisting criteria debate

There is currently a discussion between different schools of thought on Delisting Featured Pictures. Central to the debate is the "burden of proof" for a delisting - whether to require a photo to justify being an FP, or conversely, justify being delisted. Please comment at: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria For Delisting.

Witty Lama 00:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #1 re-write

I've been looking at this guideline for a while, with a view to cleaning up some ambiguities and making it more to-the-point and easier to follow. The first one is in the heading itself: That a FP should be "high quality" is more appropriate as a general heading for all criteria. This heading should be changed to describe what it actually covers - technical problems - without the slightly random, casual style. The "things a FP is" should be neatened up by listing in three sections, like this:

  • it has good contrast, accurate exposure and natural colour balance;
  • it is free from compression artifacts (such as in highly packed JPEG files), burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess"), and other processing errors;
  • its main subject is in focus, has good composition and is free from obstructions and distracting elements
Examples of common technical problems can be found here.

The link is (for now) to my userpage draft of a new gallery-based page containing all of the images currently at the foot of the FP? page, sorted according to the three points. I'm thinking that the "exceptions" part(s) of these criteria should be inline-referenced to a "Notes" section, rather than clutter up the main points.
Some of the other criteria could use a similar treatment, including "examples" pages, but I thought I'd float this one through here first before getting in too deep. mikaultalk 20:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, following that underwhelming response, I'm going to assume "slience equals consent" and make the change. Due to the verbose nature of these criteria, I've also started an experiment with a {{reflist}} footnote section and a seperate image gallery page. It could probably all use wikifying a bit more, which I could get on to as soon as I've had a go at #3 (see below) but please, feel free to chip in! mikaultalk 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, criteria #3 re-write

I've noticed that a few people recently have been citing #3 (Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work.) as a reason for opposition. Obviously this is something that we do expect but how can you really determine whether it is 'among' Wikipedia's best work? In effect it provides the ability to oppose any nomination without full justification because it cannot really be objectively argued against. My opinion is it should probably be removed or at the very least clarified further. I don't see why it can't go, because the spirit of it is basically incorporated into all the other criteria by definition anyway - if it fails the other criteria, it probably fails to be among Wikipedia's best work too, doesn't it? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed, it has the same over-generic terminology problem that #1 has, and it's equally true of #7. I've always taken #3 as trying to point out that a FP should be the best example of a given subject that WP has. I've been meaning to point this out in the debate raging over at Fir's tomato nom; for all it could perhaps be better lit and be a little more exciting, it's far and away the best shot we have of the tomato fruit, which IMO trumps the co-redundant "pleasing to the eye" (#7). This latter heading bears no resemblance to its content and is equally in dire need of re-writing to explain the aesthetic considerations most often applied to noms. Its current content ("is taken or created in a manner which best illustrates the subject of the image. The picture makes readers want to know more") has precious little to do with aesthetics and clearly belongs in a revised #3. mikaultalk 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm.. Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria uses something very similar and other criteria besides, and a parallel move to revamp them is being proposed. Worth watching, as there are some very similar themes. mikaultalk 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mick #1, #3, and #7 are a little too vague, and I would rather have them all combined into one rule. However, I disagree that they exist as an excuse for a meaningless oppose. Although I would prefer that most judgements be objective, part of a how good a photograph is, quite simply, how much it gives to the veiwer. There are some qualities that you cannot specify or quantify. Of course, some explanation of useage should be required, but I think that some form of #3 would contribute to judging FP worthiness. Admittedly, it is a weak point in the criteria, but I think that unless something drastic happens, the consensus will protect it from abuse. J Are you green? 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's still scope for outlining the "best of" sentiment. As Diliff says, without being specific about something of which "the best wikipedia has to offer" actually is, it becomes a kind of oppose excuse without any scope for rebuttal. A kind of merger of #3 and #7 (plus the incongruous heading of #1) to fix the problem might look lke this:

3. Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.

  • It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph should have good, descriptive lighting; diagrams and other images should be clear and informative.
  • A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. If an image is rare, historically important, or highly graphic, it may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
Obviously, the Best featured picture gallery doesn't exist yet, but I think it should; not only because it clarifies in the most subjective way possble what a top-quality image looks like, but because of the fun we could have deciding which half-dozen shots we should include in it :o)
We then need a revamp of #7 to specifically address the "aesthetics" dilemma, which I'll set out as a separate discussion item below.
I'd really appreciate some more opinions on all this. mikaultalk 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am against the creation of a "best featured pictures" section. It may not work in reality, but I think that Featured Pictures are the best featured pictures; they are the crème de la crème. I my opinion, any image that I would not place in "best feature pictures" should be delisted. I am not proposing that this be done; in fact I would oppose something that radical. However, I think creating a "featured of the featured" section defeats the entire purpose of having featured content; this isn't an tiered rating system - we don't have B-class images or image stubs. Featured is the best. Furthermore, I don't think what is best should be defined; everyone should be entitled to a opinion unique to that person, whether or not another person would consider it valid. OK... now that I've flamed about a minor point, I think that your proposal is on the right path. With the removal of the "best featured picture" part, I would support it as a replacement for #3 and #7. J Are you green? 01:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I've amended the proposal to include salient parts of #7, which I propose should be abolished. Instead of "best of" FPs, the gallery would include all of those examples currently listed at the end of #7. mikaultalk 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! J Are you green? 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently I've never commented on this page before (weird) so it wasn't on my watchlist. I'm broadly in agreement with the changes proposed here, but I have a few misgivings. Mick's new #3 has "among the best examples of a given subject"; I'm not entirely comfortable with that wording. We already get enough people saying "it's the best picture we have of X, go and take another one if you don't like this one" and I think moving from "best of Wikipedia" (which is admittedly vague) to "best photo of a so-and-so" is only going to reinforce that standpoint. I'm not pulling a Vaelta, but I'm a little worried that we're going to dilute the criteria so that every sharp, non-tilted, blown-highlight-free studio shot automatically gets promoted. There's a very large number of household items, vegetables, etc. out there and they don't all deserve a featured picture, IMO. Once you've got the shot set up for a tomato, it's not a big task to drop in a carrot, then a potato, then a beetroot... and suddenly we have a harvest festival instead of a collection of eyecatching, informative images (sorry to pick on Fir as an example). I'd support the promotion of a set of such shots, but individually they don't stand out enough to make me want to read an article, which I see as one of the main reasons for having FPs. Basically I think we need something in the criteria which differentiates between "workmanlike, no major flaws" and "outstanding work!". On another note, I might not go the whole hoglet but I'd give J's "delist the ones that aren't the featured featured" a second thought, because at the moment there's a very broad range of quality levels in the FP stack and I think we need to be clearer about whether it really is the crème de la crème or just a bunch of pretty nice photos that people liked once upon a time, perhaps when we had very few decent photos, but still, I don't suppose there's much wrong with them. </undeclaredrant> --YFB ¿ 02:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean about watering-down, but really this is a firming-up exercise. While "the best we have of subject X" is clearly not enough for promotion, I think the advantages of stipulating this outweigh the dangers you mention, which are always mitigated by the other criteria anyway. An earlier comment about the vagueness of the current "among our best work" statement is right, IMO; it should either clarified or deleted. Bearing in mind that it's now proposed that the new #3 be a merger of three very similar "best of" criteria, I think deleting would prove a poor (and unpopular) choice. Therefore, it needs to point to something specific: where "best of Wikipedia" is a hugely vague question, narrowing the field down to a candidate's subject area makes it much easier to be objective. For example, you could argue forever about the world's greatest person, while reaching a consensus on the world's greatest sprint cyclist is relatively simple.
Stressing "subject" is really important, IMO. It is a defining concept in seven of the current ten criteria and rightly so, from an encyclopedic pov. Far from being played down, I think it needs to be raised as much as possible! Does this mean automatic promotion for every sharp, well-exposed, 3-megapixel vegetable-on-white? I hope not and I think we should make it clear that that's far from enough. There's a lot more to consider, particularly lighting and other presentation criteria, which (thanks to you!) I've added to #3 above and which I hope goes some way to alleviating your concerns about us being taken over by alien vegetables ;) I really don't see the problem with those shots, as long as they meet the criteria and achieve consensus. Being shot on white can ruin lighting and decontextualise (sorry) the subject, or it can clarify detail which might be lost "in the wild" and be hugely encyclopedic: that's what the selection process is there to decide, not what FP criteria needs to proscribe.
As I say, I've amended the proposal for #3 again, in light of all this. I would hope it made FP promotion more, rather than less, exacting. Comments appreciated.
mikaultalk 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your considered response, Mick. As I say, I agree with what you're trying to do here. The revised version is definitely an improvement - I think it's important to have something in one of the criteria which emphasises the need for visual interest as well as technical quality and enc. I don't have any objection to the white-background shots - they're a valuable way of illustrating something in a clinical, uncluttered way. I'm just wary of having hundreds of them as FPs - really they should be the basic standard of illustration we aim for in articles about inanimate objects. I'd be happy to have them promoted as sets but not for a different vegetable to appear on the main page every other day :-)

I'm not quite sure about "good, descriptive lighting" - what's descriptive lighting? I think I know what you're getting at, but the wording sounds awkward. Maybe "photos should have appropriate lighting to maximise visible detail" or something? Otherwise, looking good. --YFB ¿ 16:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not the best wording. I'm getting a gallery together for #3 at the moment to illustrate "rare, historically important" and "shocking, informative, compelling" as well as "good presentation", which should include an example of good lighting. "Descriptive" lighting, for me, would be anything which revealed good detail or good colour saturation, or just accurate modelling (for architectural shots). I prefer your wording suggestion though & will work it in a bit later. In all honesty I have to say I'm also with you on the value of the white-background shots, but I can't help thinking that for all you feel inclined to de-value them for their lack of "wow" factor, you have to re-value them for their encyclopedic relevance. I'm just not sure I could see a sucession of them as PODs, which seems to tell me something... I realise I'm always banging on about it, but if they were as well lit as they were enc they would deserve to be up there every day. The ones I've seen so far remind me of supermarket packshots, rather than compelling studies of colour and form. Another thread, maybe. :) mikaultalk 19:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

New version of Featured Sound Criteria

I've proposed a new version of the existing criteria after a week or so to form consensus. Comments from reviewers from this room would be welcomed. Tony 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #7 re-write

Further to the #3 re-write, I propose #7 be amended thus:

7.Is pleasing to the eye. It has high aesthetic value. As well as beautiful, it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative.

  • It should be noted that a picture's encyclopedic value ranks higher than its artistic merits. While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.

The beautiful, shocking, impressive, informative part is cribbed from the WP:FP page. As per the other re-vamp proposals above, the examples at the Exceptions part might be a piped link to a gallery of FPs which aren't pretty pictures first and foremost, rather than the current, rather clumsy, list. mikaultalk 23:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that your rewrite of #3 encompasses this in that it suggests that it "is the best that the encyclopedia has to offer." Perhaps a little expansion of your rewrite to suggest this would be nice, but I think that #7 is trying to define an opinion - an invalid point IMO. I don't disagre with it, but I think that it should be more implied than defined. After all, this is a community consensus, and I think that the overall opinions of the community should be able to define what is best. Perhaps something in regard to encyclopedic value as opposed to artistic merit would be better. J Are you green? 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree and would gladly get rid of the awful "pleasing to the eye" heading. Maybe I'm just not being WP:BOLD enough... the idea of rewriting #3 to include the bones of #7 was floated in the previous section but I wasn't convinved about removing all mention of aesthetics. I've amended #3 there to include the salient parts of #7, which I've struck out here and propose be abolished. The enc criterion stays in #5. mikaultalk 00:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This picture is my comment on this issue -Ravedave 01:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, highly eloquent comment, how could anyone fail to agree? :o) mikaultalk 06:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've merged #7 with #3 and moved some of the examples to a gallery page with a link to the Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/History section, which is (almost) what the original list represented. The earwax shot is in there, for now at least :o) mikaultalk 22:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of getting everybody back on their various hobby-steeds, might I suggest we either re-nominate the earwax shot for consideration under the new criteria, or remove it from the "examples of Featured Picture qualities" gallery? It does seem a bit daft having an image in there which isn't actually an FP. Maybe third time lucky? :-) --YFB ¿ 23:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I see YFB caught my drift. The earwax shot has been nominated several time but shot down for being "yucky". I personally think it should succeed, as it is illustrative and well done. -Ravedave 03:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I caught it too :o) I completely agree, it's a great shot and the perfect example of FPs being informative first, and aesthetically pleasing second, or even third. There's bound to be complaints such an prompt resub, but I think it's justified. Looking at both previous occasions, it was unfairly shouted down, plain and simple, without proper reference to the criteria. Is there a precedent for a third submission? I certinaly hope the new wording of #3 (and the removal of "pleasing to the eye") would be a positive influence. Comments like "it's just not FP subject matter" (and there were a good few like that) are simply inappropiate. I do think we should replace it on the gallery page, at least in the interim. Any suggestions? mikaultalk 11:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons Pictures

Are commons featured pictures automatically FP here? Is their a process that could make that process faster once pictures are promoted their they are automatically voted on and promoted in a week? The Placebo Effect 23:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Commons FP requirements are different than here, so they are evaluated under the same criteria as every other nominee. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Major copyedit

The main motive for merging categories was to reduce some of the more vague and repetitive points and also to try to make the criteria appear more succinct. I hope people agree the longer criteria look neater bulletpointed, for example. The {{Reflist}} footnotes are a way of making more space for the bullets by taking out more incidental, secondary qualifications to the bottom of the page. I'm thinking we could also merge #6 and #8, as they appear to cover very similar ground, but I'm really not sure enough as yet. One final thing: how do you get rid of unwanted Contents boxes? That one wasn't there before and really isn't necessary. mikaultalk 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we still need a gallery for #9 (manipulation), if anyone feels up to it. There was a template for it suggested up the page somewhere. I'll try to get onto it next week if not. mikaultalk 22:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I wish I wasn't as busy IRL as I am - I'd really like to get more involved in this process. You were about, Mick, when it was suggested we put together a "How-to" for featured pictures; I think that's a good idea but there's no way I'll be able to get stuck into that, or manipulation galleries etc., until my finals are done. Can we put everything on hold for a month?! ;-) --YFB ¿ 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to remind me where the "how-to" was floated, I've had a quick look & can't find it. There's no rush for anything! I'm a bit less busy than I have been and can chip in the odd hour here and there, so I could set something basic up to edit later. The problem with galleries is they need to be done all at once, which means trawling through commons etc for good examples & which always side-tracks me :o/ Good luck with the finals! mikaultalk 12:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I have a feeling I might need it :-/
The how-to thingy was suggested by Nichalp at the bottom of this discussion - I told him on his talk page that I thought it was a meritable idea and that I'd have a go at putting something together during the summer. As far as manipulation galleries, it may be easier to illustrate this effectively by just doing a bit of manipulation of our own. Perhaps if we get a list together of permissible and verboten edits that we want to show examples of, it'll give us something to work from.
There's not really any reason for you to hang about waiting for me to stick my oar in - you're doing an admirable job of driving these changes without my help! I'll try to check back here from time to time and see how far you've got by the time I'm free to chip in without "should be working, damnit" guilt... --YFB ¿ 00:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent copyedit: animation sizes

Just finishing a copyedit of the first two criteria, and can't ever recall coming across a size stipulation for animations. Rather than leave them bunched in with historical and unique images (ie for lower permissible resolution) I've stated separately that they are "generally smaller". Is there an equivalent to the stills "1000-pixel" guideline? mikaultalk 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


What's the rationale behind the capitalisation at the beginning of each criterion/bullet point? It's a bit of a mess and I feel certain there used to be some method to its madness... mikaultalk 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind... changed to conform with FP:FA and others. mikaultalk 23:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging criteria (again)

Ok, this one I probably do need a wider consensus for. I think criteria #6, #8 and #9 ("accurate", "neutral" and "digital manipulation" respectively) should be merged, as they all fall under the same broad category, ie faithful depiction of the subject of an image or it's context. While I realise it seems a stretch, the three do cross over quite a bit and cover very similar ethical ground. Here's a rough starter proposal to be going on with:

7. Is a faithful representation of the subject.

  • It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page.
  • It illustrates the subject objectively and does not promote a particular agenda or point of view.(footnote 1)
  • It avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text; any undeclared manipulation which causes the main subject to be seriously misrepresented is never acceptable.(footnote 2)

1. Images of maps, for example, must be uncontroversial in their neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).
2. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.

Small text indicates proposed footnoting of what I think is slightly extraneous info. I've piped the the NPOV link (#8) but left it in the footnote. I think there's quite a bit of scope for more piped links to explain techincal terms, which would cut down the need to explain "manipulation" in such detail and explain not-so-obvious terms like "colour balance" in this and other criteria. Finally, I think it's high time we had another gallery to link to examples of acceptable/unacceptable manipulation, as proposed some time ago.
Thoughts, please!
mikaultalk 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think #9 Digital manipulation needs to stay as is, because it's something that needs all of the explanation it's got. However, I think your proposed merge of #6 and #8 clarifies and simplifies the guidelines. Enuja 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution guidelines needlessly exclude quality images

Or, put another way, FPCs are much more likely to be promoted due to high res than any other criteria, such that poorly-lit, badly-composed and ill-conceived images are gradually lowering the denomination of Featured Picture quality.
I realise we've been here several times before. I also acknowlege that, barring total irreplacability, the 1000-pixel min requirement is a hard, fast rule which might even be raised to 2000 for some editors, such is their insatiable hunger for more pixels. I sincerely think it's a nonsensical situation: if there is sufficient value in an image, it should be recognised, just as high-value historical shots are. Value is not always numerical, nor is numerical greatness always valuable. Small is often a lot more beautiful and imparts that beauty perfectly well without being examined in minute detail.

The little beauty currently at WP:FPC

There are many other fine (small) images which fall foul of this rule, but the current one getting my goat is Image:Absinthe-glass.jpg, presently being booed down for being titchy over at WP:FPC. I'd very much like to see the resolution guidelines allow for the occasional dimensionally-challenged shot like this to slip between the pixel-peepers legs, and urge your support. My rationale for supporting the absinthe shot, for the record

  1. It's very much suitable for print, being well lit and sharply focussed; without upsampling (which it might stand) it would be 2x3 inches at 200dpi
  2. Although absinthe shots are quite reproducible, the spoon isn't so easy to come by; hence it's very enc and reasonably unique
  3. As a picture, it has a certain quality, which I'm not going to waffle on about, but which sets it apart for the ordinary run-of-the-mill
  4. I like it a lot, and so do many other people, and
  5. Rules are rules, except when they're guidelines
mikaultalk 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I protest!

I protest against the criteria that we use to promote photos to Featured Photo. It seems that too much weight is put in for the quality of the photo. I don't think this should always be a priority. I think the uniqueness of the photo should have priority. For example, if one takes a photo of a specie which was thought to have died out, that photo should be able to become FA, even if it is a bad shot. People don't always get the time they need to react and make the photo look professional. Such is the case here, where a castle is besieged. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you fully understood what that picture depicts? It's a re-enactment of a castle attack at a reproduction castle at a theme park. I believe that the theme park puts on displays like this every day, and there are other places putting on displays on similar lines. None of which is a bad thing; but this particular picture isn't at all unique or irreplacable. TSP 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was modern warfare. Of course I know what it represents, but such stunts are expensive and I don't think they do it "every day." And I was only using that one as an example. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This fits the description given on their web page ([1]) of their standard show - "...Suddenly, giant war machines appear and the keep becomes the scene of a fierce battle..." - I think, in fact, that they do this several times a day during summer ("there is also a timetable of ‘shows’, which take place several times a day" [2]).
I do agree that things like historicity, importance to the encyclopedia, rarity and so on should be taken into account as well as just image quality; but I don't think this is a good example. TSP 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. If a comparatively low quality image has to be promoted, it should only be done for images of immense historic significance. the one mentioned certainly isn't on high encyclopedic value. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The classic example is Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg. Carcharoth 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "digital manipulation" by "manipulation"

This is good sample of Wikipedia cognitive bias. Who care if the manipulation is made with Photoshop, glue and scissor or in wet darkroom ? The rule about manipulation should be same. Ericd 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is the same. I think that point is reasonably provided for in the fourth bulletpoint there. The criterion was drafted to address the fact that it is so easy and commonplace to "adjust" scanned-in or purely digital images en route to the encyclopedia, nominees might be forgiven for thinking that anything goes, so to speak. Some undeclared and controversial digital comping and cloning of FPCs came to light and the new guideline followed soon after. The criterion is so thorough, I can't think of a clearer way of saying "undeclared manipulation is never acceptable", and the addition of "whether with glue and scissors or in the darkroom" would seem kind of superfluous. mikaultalk 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well my proposal is not to add "whether with glue and scissors or in the darkroom". It is that "Avoids inappropriate manipulation" is enough for point 9 "digital" just weaken the rule. Ericd 14:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image dimension requirements are a bit arbitrary

"Still images are a minimum of 1000 pixels in width or height; larger sizes are generally preferred. Animated images are generally much smaller. Further information on image size can be found here."

Doesn't that sound odd? By that definition, I could upload an image of 1px x 1000px. Seeing as how HD is generally the standard for high quality video outside of studios, I don't see why our requirements shouldn't be the same. My suggestion:

  • Still raster images should be a minimum of 0.92 megapixels, but the actual dimensions must be at least 1280×720, while 1920×1200 (2.3 megapixels) is the recommended minimum size – to fully fit a HDTV-compatible computer monitor. This dimension requirement may be modified or waived on a per-nomination basis at voters' discretion, based on the quality and contents of the nominated image.
  • Animated raster images must be clear and legible at their original size. No dimension requirements are set, as they may vary from image to image based on the animation nominated.
  • Vector graphics images have no formal dimension requirements, though they must scale without distorting the image from its original design.

♠ SG →Talk 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that by 1280×720, I mean the image cannot have a width smaller than 1280 nor a height less than 720 pixels. That means no odd 1000×1000 cropped photos (even though they exceed 0.92MP). This basically limits us to accepting at least 720p photos. I would certainly prefer to have a minimum of 1440×1080, essentially 1080p in a 4:3 configuration, but I'm being a little conservative, as I know there are a few people who would complain about this resolution. ♠ SG →Talk 03:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How about 360 degree panoramas? I like that your suggested requirements are meaningful instead of arbitrary, but I think having things exactly fit monitors misses out on things that are supposed to be oddly shaped. Enuja (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think its a good idea to explain why large images are prefered, but I don't really think that digital video resolutions have any significance to still images visible on a PC on Wikipedia... To be honest, it sounds like the rationale behind using HD resolutions is just as arbitrary as saying 1000x wide. Common sense says that the proportions should be appropriate and that panoramas are probably going to be judged more harshly than images with 1:1 proportions. Even if this isn't stated explicitly in the guidelines, we all still reserve the right to suggest a panorama with 1000x200px is a bit small. In the end, regardless of the guidelines, we all vote based on our own intuitions just as much as we vote with the guidelines in mind. As long as our reasons are justifiable. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
By and large I agree with what Diliff said above - why should the sizing be based off digital video resolutions? However the idea of say a 0.92MP guideline is not bad, though I would disagree with changing the current minimum of 1000px minimum side length. --Fir0002 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the original preferred size was 800x600, based on the resolution of the (then) standard SVGA computer monitor. Maybe I dreamed it or something.. but I'm fairly sure the idea was that images would then be suitable for wallpaper use. This has been quietly dropped in favour of a pixel count more suitable for print, but (not surprisingly) no-one has ever come up with a set of x-y dimensions which define "printable" - and 1000px is barely enough for a decent 5x4-inch print. I've previously ranted at length on the only sensible criterion, which is that an image be big enough to properly evaluate for quality, which in effect is entirely subject-based. If fine details constitute an important criterion for a given subject, the image needs to be of sufficiently high resolution to show them clearly. A panorama, like most landscape shots, needs to be considerably bigger than a portrait of the Queen of England, which, frankly, I could evaluate better at 800x600 than I could at 3000x2000. While a good working average for all this might be around 1000px, based on nothing more than the ability to view a reasonable amount of detail for most subjects at more-or-less full screen, it clearly should be an arbitrary figure; the problem is that people regard it as mandatory. This would be the case no matter how you expressed it, in x-y dimensions or megapixels – worsening the problem, I think, the more specific (cf "0.92Mp") you make it. People jump on that figure and if an image adds up to less beans, they oppose. The only solution is to weaken the criterion, not firm it up. --mikaultalk 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"it might be shocking"

Concern has been raised that the potential negative impact of some "shocking" images that have been selected for the front page may be greater than the value gained in showing the images. Difficult to know at what point the negative shock impact of a strong image placed on the main page overweighs the educational value - but I can conceive that some images may be so repelling that people are turned away rather than drawn in. I have come here looking for the guidance on such shocking images. What I see is "it might be shocking" without any other qualifying remark, which appears to leave the door open. I'd like to see a criteria paragraph along the lines of 2: "Is of high resolution." that a picture should not be highly offensive or strong enough to be reasonably expected to shock or stun, with an exception along these lines: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'd find much support for such a proposal. If you'd taken part in the discussion, you should be aware is that there is no way you can define what is 'resonably expect to shock or stun'. In some societies, any nudity is offensive, and is likely to shock and stun. In some societies, two men french kissing may be offensive and is likely to shock or stun. I think you may have misunderstood the criteria. I see no evidence that the specific images that have drawn complaints were chosen because they were 'shocking'. Far more likely they were chosen because the are an excellent illustration (which is the whole reason for FP) of shocking but sadly common behaviour. It is the behaviour depicted that is shocking not the image. Nil Einne 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a fine dividing line would be difficult to draw up, but that difficulty shouldn't mean we don't have a discussion to see what solutions we can offer. The current Featured picture criteria don't appear to have any suggestion that an image involving child pornography would be rejected, yet it clearly would (wouldn't it?). I think it would make sense to have a section in the criteria which makes editors at least PAUSE and consider before selecting an image which may have a negative impact on Wikipedia's reputation. Few of our guidelines are clear cut - there is always an allowance for the situation and sensible adjustments. But what the guidelines do offer is just that - some guidance. What images are likely to shock? Images involving violence, especially sexual violence. Graphic images of sexual behaviour. Images which violate religious beliefs. Images involving extreme abuse of children and animals. Intense images of bodily violence involving blood. You know, the sorts of images that tend to cause controversy in even the most liberal of societies. I'm not suggesting that such images are banned, but that it is suggested that caution and care be applied when considering using such images on the main page. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure an image of child pornography wouldn't be put up because, as well as being shocking, it would be pretty illegal. Hammer Raccoon 13:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So we have a starting point. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"Images which violate religious beliefs." I'm not so sure what you mean by this. Does a picture of a woman not wearing a a Hijab count? Because that violates the religious beliefs of some Muslims.
As for the child porno picture, I believe that it would violate current policy simply to upload it. In my opinion, anything that violates U.S.A., and Florida state law must not be uploaded. Furthermore, most porno is copyrighted so that would be another issue. Puchiko (talk contribs  email) 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As Puchiko has pointed out, Wikipedia abides by United States federal and Florida state law. Therefore, lewd photographs of anyone under the age of 18 or non-consenting adults is prohibited. Now, should we be the recipients of a high-quality photo of, say, a naked woman, it should undoubtedly be featured and eventually make its way to the front page. Wikipedia is not censored, and so the quality and encyclopedic value of an image must outweigh any ethical concern about political correctness, so long as we stay within the law. Saying that an image should not be featured or displayed on the front page because it MAY be shocking to certain people is against the purpose of an encyclopedia. Besides, all of those images would STILL be there on their respective article pages, so limited censorship defeats the purpose. I strongly oppose any such rule, and if it were ever enforced, I'd leave Wikipedia immediately.
I think User:Shir-El too put it best on that talk page: "An encyclopedia should reflect its contents". ♠ SG →Talk 08:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
More to the point: an encyclopedia's images should reflect its contents as descriptively as possible. The current situation is that we depend on the consideration of those editors involved with a given article way back when a controversial image is uploaded to that page. It's the same for controversial written content: if it's notable, and more pertinently, essential to the understanding of that article, it will be included subject to current guidelines. Much later, a picture may become Featured based on its excellence as an image, period: the ethical inclusion/exclusion wrangling will have been over with long before the WP:FPC process begins. We should not be shying away from recognising outstanding images as Features Pictures based on the imagined sensibilities of a minority of faint-hearted visitors. I'd suggest you take this issue to one of the POTD pages, maybe Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day or even Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines, but I'd guess you'll get an even stronger response there: if it's in the encyclopedia and it's been selected as premium content, it has surely been vetted enough to appear on the front page without any qualms whatsoever. --mikaultalk 10:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of fonts

The lack of a standard for fonts used in maps and diagrams has given Wikipedia a random mis-mash of different styles. This is especially problematic for SVG files where the labels may not render properly if the image is using a font not found on most computers. There are numerous examples of SVGs I can point to where this is a problem. Most encyclopedias have a standard set of fonts that they use for all images that include rendered text; Wikipedia should be no different. I think it's time that we create a guideline/recommendation for which fonts are preferred in diagrams and maps. These should be clean attractive fonts that can be found on most computers (Mac and PC at least). Verdana, Arial, and Trubuchet MS come to mind as possible recommendations. Kaldari 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would go along with that, although there's no need for more than a few words in the FP criteria. Many of the FP criteria merely reiterate Wikipedia:Image use policy and WP:MOS and I'd suggest you find some consensus there to spell out the guideline, which can then be linked to from here. --mikaultalk 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have opposed (i.e. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bttf.png) a number of FPC due to poor typography (which is partially an issue with using SVG without embedded fonts). I think forcing users to use something like Arial is a bad idea. While in theory, standardizing illustrations/diagrams and branding a look for wikipedia is all great, I do not believe that with such a massive, diverse project, it's implementation would be feasible. I'd be more interested in Wikipedia working towards giving us designers more font options besides default (because if we want to use a custom font now, we must convert the text to outlines, and thus partially defeating the purpose of SVGs because text converted to outlines cannot be edited or selected by end users). Maybe Wikipedia could work on licensing decent fonts, or team up with an open source typeface project. Or maybe Wikipedia could develop some way to securely embed typefaces in a manner similar to that of PDFs or Flash. But as of now, I do not think it would be worth it to block FP promotion because a user used default font X instead of default font Y. As it goes for FP, my personal standard is based on my knowledge of what is and isn't "good" typography. I do not want to create a scenario where perfectly good images are rejected based on not using font Y, while the flaws of poorly designed images are overlooked because it meets a standard criteria of using font Y.-Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain a bit about the technical issues involved in using fonts in SVG images? Does "embedding" a font in an SVG mean it is converted to outlines? If so, I agree that would not be an ideal solution. If we are not embedding fonts, however, I think we should at least encourage people to use common fonts so that most people can see the text as it was intended. Most designers are familiar with the idea of "web-safe" fonts, so this shouldn't be very difficult for people to adhere to, IMO. Kaldari 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
SVGs support font embedding (a copy of the font is coded into the SVG file). Wikipedia has disabled this feature, so if you upload an SVG file that you encoded with Adobe Illustrator and checked the "embed font" option, the SVG will not display properly once uploaded. I image the reason why Wikipedia has disabled this feature was due to copyright concern (I'm not sure how secure SVG font embedding is. perhaps it is easy to extract and therefore "steal" the fonts?) but it could also be that SVG files can become fairly large and bloated if multiple fonts are embedded. So now, the only options designers who want to use a custom font are to use a raster image (png, jpg, gif) or to convert the text to outlines for an SVG. I agree that websafe fonts is an issue that most designers are aware of. However, designers have also created technologies/hacks, such as sIFR and FIR to give back font control to designers when it comes to headline text. I can live with body text being Verdena or some other default, but the fact of the matter is, the main body text of the article is where the body text is supposed to go. Illustrations should rarely, if ever, have "body text", but will instead have titles and labels. On top of that, I can think of scenarios where an image could be improved with the use of custom typefaces over the defaults (for example, a period typefaces could accompany a period map to help set the mood and create a historical feel for the whole image).-Andrew c [talk] 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. If Wikipedia has disabled being able to use SVG images with embedded fonts, why is it that when I download Image:Tugboat_diagram-en_edit.svg to my computer and open it in Illustrator it says "MS Sans Serif: Default font substituted for missing font"? It seems like there is a font embedded in the image (and it's apparently a font that I don't have). Kaldari 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the same thing that HTML/CSS has. You can specify a specific font for a webpage, but if the user does not have the font on their computer, they will not see the webpage in the desired font. Similarly, you can tell the SVG file that a certain text box will be displayed in font X, but if you don't have font X, it will revert to the default. However, none of this embeds the font into the document. It just codes for the font attribute (if that makes sense). You can also embed the font (physically putting the font info into the SVG file), thus eliminating the need for the end user to have the font already installed on their machine. Make sense?-Andrew c [talk] 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Got it. Too bad the default font for SVGs on a Mac is a huge typewriter font! Kaldari 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Help create a Manual of Style for maps and diagrams

Right now it seems that Wikipedia provides no guidance on the best practices for creating maps and diagrams. These types of images are rapidly proliferating on Wikipedia. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation has just started a grant program to pay illustrators to add new diagrams to articles in need. It would be nice if most of these additions followed similar styles and conventions instead of continually reinventing the wheel (with various degrees of success). Although I don't believe Wikipedia needs to enforce one particular style on all maps and diagram, there are some helpful conventions that I think we should put into writing somewhere. Wikipedia:Image use policy doesn't seem like the appropriate place for this, so I've decided to be bold and create a proposed Manual of Style page for maps and diagrams. Right now it is mostly blank as I would like to know what suggestions the Wikipedia community has to offer. Feel free to hop over there and edit it to your heart's content or add ideas to the talk page. Thanks! Kaldari 01:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

At one point in time Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps was discussing standardization (see the top topics on the project's talk page). Don't know if this should be crossposted there, or if that old proposal resurrected. Also, where did you hear about the Wikipedia Foundation grant program?-Andrew c [talk] 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't even know about that WikiProject. I've crossposted there. I heard about the grant program on the Wikipedia Signpost (last week I think). Kaldari 01:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital photo manipulation bullet needs to be stronger

This rules.
This sucks.

I'm still pretty upset that the digitally manipulated photo Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg is a featured picture. I don't know if the top of that boxer's head looked like that at that moment. Nobody does. This is a fantasy image - part photo, and part painting. I don't see this as a minor retouching. What's next - airbrushing head-shots to remove unsightly skin blemishes? This photo contains inappropriate digital manipulation, and Featured status should be removed from the photo. And our policy should be that featured pictures are not allowed to be digitally manipulated to add features to a photo, or subtract features from a photo (other than by appropriate cropping of course). Tempshill (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I'd prefer that the latter be our policy on all Wikipedia photos that are included in articles (who cares about userspace); but adopting this policy for Featured photos is a minimum. Tempshill (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest you nominate it for delisting, then re-nominate the original for promotion. --mikaultalk 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FP eligibility for animal pictures

There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk  contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

amended footnote for #7

I've tweaked this footnote following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Captions(again), mainly to remove the confusing phrase "extended caption", which is an option (per the final sentence which desribes optional main page PoD prose) rather than a requirement.--mikaultalk 09:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #7 clarification

Suggested clarification further to discussion at FPC:

7. Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. A complete caption:

  • Is succinct
  • Properly identifies the main subject, including latin and technical names where applicable
  • Describes the context of the photograph
  • States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc)

Captions are explained in more detail at Wikipedia:Captions

I can't think of anything else right now. I'm happy enough with the prominence of the word "succinct" as it stands, others might want to stress the point more.. or less.. --mikaultalk 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No I think that's a fine amendment. For the first few weeks as nominators get adjusted to the new requirements, it may be worth adding that POTD captions are not required (or in some cases even desired) and adding a link to the discussion on the WP:FPC talk page --Fir0002 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's easily done by tweaking the footnote, which already mentions POTD. In the fullness of time there should be no need to mention POTD captioning, as it's a separate process to FPC.
I do think there's something to be said for a good description on the image page, which might help with POTD captioning, but this is basically (a) up to the enthusiasm of the contributor (b) is only really valuable if it's not already in the article (ie picture context) and (c) the potential for anything substantial varies widely with subject area. Not something you'd want to make mandatory for all candidates, I think. note: I've tweaked the second point --mikaultalk 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Consider removing the italics on most relevant, since italics are not used in any of the other criteria. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right enough; sorted :o) --mikaultalk 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)