Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Tetlin, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-24, DD 22-30 PAN.jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Tetlin, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-24, DD 22-30 PAN.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 18:54:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
  • I like the picture, but I agree with you that the best bit about it is the interesting mountains in the distance. In some ways I would almost prefer a crop about 40% the way along so that the focus was on the right-hand side of the panorama, which is much more interesting than the left. But it's worth pointing out that great light is hard to come by in Alaska. Cmao20 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should that be? The golden hour is even longer. Chance of northern lights too. We get plenty overcast dull days or rainy days in the UK but that isn't an excuse for me. The point is this is a "I happened to be here at this time and got out of my car on the Alaska highway" photo rather than some of the mountain hikes we see from Podzemnik. There's no subject, just a lazy "grab everything" panorama, which seem to be about half the photos from these trips. The cylindrical projection naturally bends the top (mountain) and bottom (lakeside, river) so many of these panoramas are very distorted when you compare to the reality... but there is no geocoding, and nothing more specific in the description than a national park of 2,833 km², which is like me saying "Somewhere in the Lake District". -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing someone demotivating others here, but more a message of "no, not all the pictures you take in a trip is worth FP label". It is still possible to upload pictures for the sole purpose of having them available for articles illustration or just adding up to the Commons repository. - Benh (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave up reviewing your lazy nominations a while back. I only popped in after I saw Benh's review and saw it was a bit lonely. These cylindrical projection panoramas, they're all a bit rubbish. I know you took hundreds of them and are determined to nominate every bloody one in your back catalogue, but please no. Let's have some photos with composition and where you have actually sought out great light. Remember, for all the easy unspectacular FPs you get, there are many others here who see their new fresh work picked apart for dust spots, wonky horizons, boring composition, no wow, etc, etc. At least they tried. You aren't even trying any more. What does it mean, Poco, to be a photographer if you aren't trying to be a better photographer tomorrow? The rest of us take the criticism we get at FPC and try to improve our next photographs. You, you stopped uploading new photos a while back, in some huge sulk. And do let me know when you are offering at least as many reviews as your FPCs require each month. Because "contributing to Commons" also involves doing your share of reviewing, praising and criticising other's photos too. -- Colin (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second half of your clause is nonsense and bears no resemblance to what I wrote. But the first half. Let's be clear so I'll say it again. These cylindrical projection panoramas, they're all a bit rubbish. That isn't "my[your] work". Just some of it. Well, hundreds of the bloody things to be honest. If you can't deal with folk thinking some of your photos are "a bit rubbish" then please stop nominating and go out and take some better ones. Do your fair share of reviewing, take, upload and nominate an excellent photo with great composition and light, and I'll give you a big green support template. How about that for some motivation? Most other people seem to manage. -- Colin (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I'm talking about: this one is photography, with the monastery, mountain and nearby hill all arranged and filling the frame, and the light bringing out the form of these. It was nominated shortly after you took it, so clearly you thought it was one of your best. It got 23 supports. Whereas this one is not photography, it is merely standing on a high point and rotating while pressing the shutter. We get a strong distortion of reality, and lots of tiny elements in a fairly empty canvas. It was nominated years after you took it. It got 4 supports, including your own, and five opposes before you withdrew. Concentrate on nominating photos you think will get 20+ supports, and learn from your failed noms,and take and upload some new material. I'd understand if, after all the years you've been here, you got failed noms that were experimental and radical, but you get failed noms that are boring with obvious flaws you should have noticed, or that are similar to existing FPs you've already got. That just makes reviewing your work tedious, especially when you don't review your share. You still haven't fixed the geocoding or the dust spot, which is basic stuff. -- Colin (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin's comments are valid from a photographic perspective. But I consider his accusations that Poco2's photos have "zero composition", that he is "lazy" and that his nominations are "rubbish" are offensive. Are there any sanctions available? If not, perhaps it is time for this POTY winner to submit some photographs of his own for us to vote on. And I don't believe there is any harm in nominating old material. I have dozens of photos I've taken that I could consider nominating. And Poco is a regular voter. Charles (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles, it is quite acceptable to make serious accusations provided there is evidence. We have here a nomination of a landscape photo with no closer location information than a national park of 2,833 km² and a very obvious dust spot in thumb. So I'm quite happy that those accusations, of a regular who knows the standards others are expected to meet, are amply supported by evidence. I don't think you'd let me off with "Lake in East Anglia.jpg". Charles, there are plenty nominations where you have opposed with one word "composition", so please don't lecture me about my point that a ~180° panorama has "zero composition". Of course it does. The point about old material, in case you haven't noticed, is that old material is all Poco has nominated for a long time. Poco is a very occasional voter, but serial nominator. He requires more review time per FP than anyone else here. He's actually received more oppose votes this month than he has given reviews himself, so we're a long way from doing as much as others do. -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, we are recycling arguments made by all many months ago and no progress since then. Seems pointless to waste any more time here. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear that Colin's comments are valid from a photographic perspective. My post complains about Colin's offensive language, nothing else. I am really surprised that most other voters here don't seem to mind. Charles (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Charlesjsharp: Well I also think Colin might be a little harsh on his wording, but I think what he says often make sense. At least he has the courtesy of developping his opinion rather than making friendly votes or avoid opposing. The point with Poco is that it seems he's only hunting FP stars, and is careless in his noms. Most noms here seem much more carefully thought. Poco will simply nominate ALL his backlog and ensure he has always two active noms to make the most of it. We all come back with thousands of pictures of our trips. Only he doesn't filter as much as we do, ruining the value of an FP overall (what's the point of getting a star if a picture like this is promoted??). I'd rather point this out. - Benh (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very valid point Benh! Thanks so much for stating that. And regarding the geocode, I have been adding it to nearly all of my uploads for 6-7 years now; I wonder how many of Poco's uploads have geocode. As it seems, if only his FPC nominated pictures would all have one, this would be a huge progress. But useless to request it from someone for whom it's only about his own convenience and FP count. --A.Savin 14:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I interrupt this "let's cover Poco with shit" party? Will not answer each individual comment as I've other things to do, but I do feel that I'm a regular nominator and reviewer here, as I am in QI. I travel often (like in the last 2 weeks) and I don't have the needed bandwidth to download and review images, nominating is easier as I prepare the candidates when I'am at home. I've added geodata to most of my FPCs and some QI (whenever somebody asks for it). Of course that I distinguish between solid and acceptable FPs and see no drama to nominate also the latter. Ruining FP would be accepting images as FP which shouldn't, but that's rather up to reviewers no the nominators. Yes, Colin is often rude in his language, which is a constant when I am the subject. Poco2 19:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I much prefer this crop. Is it worth pinging the two undecided/neutral voters here? Cmao20 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a second. This is a totally different crop. You can't just cut out half the photo and not notify everyone who voted. You should have kept the original and uploaded the crop as a separate file and offered it here as an alt. That's the normal process. Many of the comments above are about the extra wide panorama and you've just invalidated them all by breaking our clear policy on file overwriting, which specifically disallows a radical crop. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Refugio_Nacional_de_Vida_Silvestre_Tetlin,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-24,_DD_22-30_PAN.jpg&oldid=366560386"