Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 16, 2016

Image

Re: change of image: agreed, the image doesn't show well in small size, but please consider:

The removed image is the composer' handwriting of the piece in question, - we can hardly get closer to an image being relevant. Readers will know that a click on the image shows them more.
The article is not about the composer.
The memory is of a performance after his death, 100 years ago the 16th, - we shouldn't show him alive ;)
To show a piano is misleading, as the article mentions three works: all without piano.

Please restore the image of the score, - if needed larger and/or cropped to the upper staff. It has the title(s), the name of the publisher, the dedication, and the handwritten music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do a crop, Gerda as an example of what might work? Montanabw^(talk) 10:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't modified images on the commons. The image shows two musical staffs (upright), - just the first would work (landscape), - actually, for me the unchanged image of the full page would work even better (because the text comes only in the second). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging David Levy. - Dank (push to talk) 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- David, the image of the composer at the piano is great, and to be included in piano works, and 1910/11 works, - just please not here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More image concerns

David: To show a rather young Reger alive at the piano seems a bad choice of image for a work first performed on 16 July 1916 after his death. I'd rather have no image than that one, but please see above for a better one. It was the signature image of the article since Michael Bednarek made it available in the very beginning. What do Brian and Chris think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see a young Reger alive at the piano than an old Reger dead at the piano. I'd personally rather see young Max than a bit of hard-to-decipher music MS, but I defer to the wishes of the article's principal author and nominator. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Max in the DYK section, - if you want him young, change the image there ;) (I can't, it needs an admin.) - Seriously: we run many bios, and can show at a glance that this is different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda: Please see my edits. I originally intended to type this reply before saving them, but your 15:54 follow-up led me to conclude that it would be prudent to make the change immediately (and post this message after a delay) so you wouldn't think that I was ignoring your concerns.

The removed image is the composer' handwriting of the piece in question, - we can hardly get closer to an image being relevant.

Agreed.

Readers will know that a click on the image shows them more.

As a matter of convention, the thumbnails that we display on the main page function as discernible illustrations, not merely as an interface for navigation to larger versions of the images.

The article is not about the composer.

When a featured article's subject is a creative work, we frequently display an image of its author. Regarding the nature of the anniversary, point taken.

To show a piano is misleading, as the article mentions three works: all without piano.

The image is described as the "first page from the autograph of the piano version of the Requiem". Is this in need of revision?

The image shows two musical staffs (upright), - just the first would work (landscape), - actually, for me the unchanged image of the full page would work even better (because the text comes only in the second).

I've switched to a landscape crop, accompanied by an "Expand" link to indicate that it isn't the full image. This still isn't particularly clear (despite its larger-than-usual size), but like Brian, I defer to your preference. —David Levy 16:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it, and introduced the "man at the piano" here (a GA-to-be), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Per your suggestion, I swapped the DYK image to that photograph.

To reiterate: The sheet music image is described as the "first page from the autograph of the piano version of the Requiem" (emphasis added). Is this in need of revision? —David Levy 16:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The caption is right, but it was more meant for rehearsals, not for performance. A recent recording used it though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. —David Levy 20:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Levy, Gerda Arendt, the DYK rule (WP:DYKIMG) is that the image used must appear in the article. The image that had been in Queue 5 is in the article; this new image is not, so it isn't eligible. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset: I've added the photograph to the article.

Out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind this rule? Do you know whether it was discussed at some point? The main page's other sections lack such a requirement, which seems like a needless constraint. (An image suitable for use in an article doesn't necessarily work well as a tiny thumbnail.)

I'm wondering whether the "already in the article" wording was meant to convey something along the lines of "don't wait for the hook to be approved before including an appropriate illustration in the article", without an intent to mandate that a specific image be used in that context. Otherwise, there would be no need to follow it with "relevant to the article". (Why would the article contain an irrelevant image?) "Relevant to the article" is the standard applied elsewhere on the main page, and I see no reason for DYK to enforce a stricter criterion. —David Levy 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was introduced with this edit. The summary appears to refer to this thread, which contains no mention of the criterion or the logic behind it. I found no prior discussion of the rule. I found one subsequent discussion, but it was about whether a cropped version of the image from the article was in compliance with the rule; the matter of why such a restriction was added in the first place wasn't addressed. —David Levy 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{[ec}} Thanks, David Levy. As for the original reasoning behind the rule, it was created before my time (I've been active at DYK for nearly five years), and while I imagine it was discussed back in the early days, I've never gone looking for the reasons behind the wording. If I had to guess, it was more to have articles as complete as possible, including images from which a hook image could be selected, like there should be interesting facts (that are well sourced) from which the hook text can be formed. (Also, rules tend to try to prevent problems that have occurred in the past, which makes me suspect that some irrelevant images appeared on the main page before these rules were codified.) I have seen a number of articles with images I felt were tangential at best to the article in question (for example, of a more famous person who had a slight intersection with the subject); those would be a tougher sell at DYK. My view, which is different from yours, is that if the image isn't deemed appropriate to include in the article, it shouldn't be used to represent the article on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset: An image used to illustrate an article on the main page definitely should be suitable for inclusion therein, but another image might simply function better in that context (despite working poorly as a tiny thumbnail). For this reason (and because non-free images aren't permitted on the main page), the TFA, ITN, OTD and TFL sections frequently contain images that don't appear in the bold-linked articles.

You'd agree, I presume, that we don't want to encourage the addition of material to articles purely for the sake of triggering DYK eligibility. (I know that this has occurred with text; editors have inserted superfluous/redundant/off-topic prose, either to artificially boost the level of expansion or as an excuse to mention something largely irrelevant at DYK.) We want users to add images to articles because they provide the best illustration possible (within Wikipedia's policies), not because it's the only way to get them onto the main page. We don't want articles to be padded with superfluous images, nor do we want contextually superior images removed to make room.

Note that DYK's image criteria previously contained the language "If an article does not have an image, but you use a related image to display on DYK, please add that image to the article.", which clearly was intended to ensure the article's completeness. This edit replaced that instruction with "If there are no suggestions with appropriate images, you can usually use a flag for a topic with a national connection." (This, of course, was poor advice; unless the hook relates to the flag itself, that's the sort of tangential connection to which you referred above.) —David Levy 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it went without saying that it had also to go to the article. I'll see what I can do, - had rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry about an edit conflict not handled well.) I (thought I had) changed the image in the article. - Btw, "playing piano" (as in the image title) is optimistic, - I took enough pictures of artists at keyboards to know that most often they don't "play" but "pose", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]