User:Intothewoods29/A Newbie's Guide to Getting Through FPC
Good pictures[edit]
Diagrams[edit]
Diagrams must be correct in every aspect; otherwise, it doesn't have any EV. One example of this is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Dynamite, where a rather good picture of dynamite (on the left) failed because it was an incorrect representation of dynamite (real dynamite cannot be ignited with a fuse, and the tape is around all of the sticks, not around each stick of dynamite).
Other[edit]
"Wow Factor" - The Unwritten Rule at WP:FPC[edit]
The wow factor of a picture is often one of the major objections that
- Support, well-shot, clear and encyclopedic. Might not be "Wow!" but that's not among the criteria :) Todor→Bozhinov 10:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, you're right, it isn't in the criteria, but most people apply it anyway, whether its implicit or explicitly stated. I have always thought that "wow" certainly helps the composition, but sometimes a clear, detailed, straight-forward encyclopaedic image is of more value to Wikipedia than an awe-inspiring-but-of-limited-educational-value image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a great picture of a yellow hard hat, and will - I'm sure - illustrate and add wonderfully to one or two articles on head-gear and so on. However, the humble hard-hat will always struggle to achieve the "wow!" factor on its own. --bodnotbod 06:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- comment: This is precisely why I nominated it. As you stated, this is a great picture and illustrates its article wonderfully. The "wow" factor seems like a bit of a jaded judgement though, since it deprecates the subject (...of hard hats). For instance, would you vote against the (already featured) picture of a Nikon lens because lenses generally lack that certain je ne sais quoi? --Anetode
- Although I understand that the FP criteria does not demand that pictures contain a "wow" factor, there must be something that sets this image apart from an ordinary picture. For a photograph of an object, I would suppose that there must be something in the photograph itself that is beautiful or extraordinary or "wow"-ing; otherwise, every clear picture of an apple, a tree or a table will get promoted as an FP. I think this is slightly distinguished from the Nikon camera lens picture you linked to; the camera lens picture contains interesting details in the numbers, whereas this picture of a hard hat unfortunately does not enlighten me further than that a hard hat is a) a hat b) hard and c) can come in yellow. Enochlau 11:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I concur with Botnotbod. Enochlau 07:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
...
- Oppose - I think that an image needs to engage the reader and somehow interest the reader and compel them to read on about the subject matter which is depicted. This can be achieved many ways, the "wow" factor, artistic composition, shocking or titillating subject, historical rarity, etc. With skill, you can even make what would ordinarily be a boring thing (camera lens, as noted above) into something substantially more intriguing and even evocative of the function with which it is involved, in that particular case it is the use of interesting lighting techniques. This, is...well....just a hardhat. It illustrates the subject at hand satisfactorily but goes no further than that and that is why I can't support it for FP. --Deglr6328 08:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a very nice picture, but I don't think it would do all to well at FPC. FP demands a "wow" factor, and while this picture is nice and illustrative, it really does not distinguish itself from how any other picture of the Unisphere would look. It also has a some noise, chromatic aberration, and a few overexposed areas. A good picture, really, though. thegreen J Are you green? 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
A good example of an FPC that passed with less than perfect "wow factor": Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nagoya Castle.