Wikipedia talk:Picture peer review

message: I wonder if the suggested format for submissions is right.  It ends with 
*Nominate and support. - ~~~~ 
which is surely something for WP:FPC rather than here?  Isn't this page about gathering opinions and suggestions, not votes?  What are the votes for - promotion to WP:FPC?  If the submitter wanted that, they could just have put it there themselves.  If this is somewhere where people are going to vote on pictures, it seems to be redundant - that's what FPC is for. TSP 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are probably right. Part of the original concept of PPR was that it would be a staging post for FPC and so we tried to keep the individual submission pages quite similar, so that a nomination could be moved over to FPC when ready. As it happens, PPR is developing its own style on its own, so it could well be a good idea to update the nomination template. -- Solipsist 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I favor changing the template. It should only be about comments, not voting. Just confusing that way! InvictaHOG 20:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested format 

message: *This photograph would be highly valued in the Geneva artice, I think. NauticaShades(talk) 18:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Escalade Commmemoration

message: The "Instructions" section states the following:
:To ask for help with a picture fill out an FPC template, then add it to an appropriate section below.
:#Review Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? to make sure the image is up to standards.
:## If you think your picture may not meet standards add it to Wikipedia:Picture peer review for review.
:#…
If our pictures may not be up to snuff, then what? This sort of incomplete direction is confusing, and makes your average wiki-dolt like me feel even more like a wiki-dolt.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'm just your average wiki-dolt: sometimes I just don't think things through. That said, being a wiki-dolt, I'm still not sure I quite understand the directions fully. Perhaps something a little simpler is in order.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarity in "Instructions," please!

message: When removing old pictures, should we move them to an archive, or just remove the transclusions?  -- Norvy (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a backlog tag, pending a decision whether old discussions are archived or deleted.  My preference is for archiving - it should be quite easy to move the section headers from the main page to an archive page. Pstuart84 Talk 09:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, we should archive them. "If a suggestion doesn't find a seconder within one week, it can be removed to make way for new suggestions". It take more than a week on average for a person to even comment on a photo. --Digon3 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I advocate archiving, because if one feels to go back into the more historic comments, one can learn quite a lot. Comments in particular on blunders that one does not encounter for photos that are submitted as FP.--Klaus with K 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to go ahead and archive them by year. If we decide to do something else we can always delete the pages--Digon3 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I archived up to March 2007. The links to the archives are at the bottom of the page. --Digon3 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I wanted to put this up for review, but I honestly have no idea how. Can someone help? NyyDave 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Needed

message: A discussion on the WP:FPC talk page got me thinking that Picture Peer Review could also work as a QI-style review, ie with an award for the best. I'm not at all clear how it would work, maybe like FPC, maybe just needing a couple of seconders to promote it, maybe, I dunno, a points system? But not a separate project; it effectively covers the same ground as WP:PPR. The aim is to encourage better-quality uploads from our resident photographers by offering a review, advice, perhaps revamping but ultimately recognising better than average submissions which don't quite reach FP standards. I think FPC has helped raise image standards in general but may be a bar too high for many worthy snappers to jump, and this might add in that incentive on another level. There's actually a proposal for a further "level" there which I think is probably more along the lines of what would work here. Any thoughts? --mikaultalk 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  QI-style? 

message: I made some updates to the procedure, to include more in the inputbox, hope you don't mind. →AzaToth 03:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomination procedure 

message: The guidelines for a featured picture say "the larger the better." But in practical terms, what should we shoot for? -Freekee (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, a minimum of 1000px along the longest edge. In practical terms, an FP would need to be exceeed that by a good margin. --mikaultalk 08:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Optimum picture size?

message: Could this page be used as a "spot check" for delistings? Guest9999 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delistings

message: Following a lengthy discussion on the Featured picture candidates Talkpage a general consensus was met to develop an alternative method of recognising pictures to Featured Pictures, to be known as Valued Pictures - see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Valued_Pictures_Proposal. 
Further discussions have also been held on my talkpage and other users' talkpages. To bring it together in one location I am opening the discussion here. A key reason is that the basic proposal included the notion that PPR would serve as the staging ground for Valued Picture Candidates. 
How would this all work. Please head over to User:Jjron/VP Trial and you'll get a pretty good idea of how I propose the process would look and function. Note: one of the key changes from my original proposal is the removal of the Certified VP Assessors, so that anyone can vote on VPCs.
I have added sections below for general discussion on the various aspects of the proposal. Follow the links in the headings to the relevant section of the User:Jjron/VP Trial page. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valued Pictures Proposal 

message: *My proposal co-opts PPR for VPC use. There have been suggestions to rename PPR to VPC, or to create a new VPC page (which would lead to three different image projects). I think VPC should be integrated into PPR as proposed, and suggest creating a VPC redirect page that will point to PPR, and adding Valued pictures to the Fpipages template. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: *As I remarked above, the header needn't differentiate between a VPC review and a PPR, as a peer review is basically the same thing. Outstanding candidates would still be submitted to FPC, bypassing or kind of "leapfrogging" the VP review. We really need this process to be as simple as possible; the proposal as it stands is very straightforward, apart from this issue. --mikaultalk 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#PPR.2FVP_Header|Revamped PPR Header]]

message: *Note the nomination process works to create a new nom for the trial page. Feel free to give it a try, see the proposed template, and add your test nom to the list if you like. --jjron (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#Instructions|Nomination Instructions/Procedure]]

message: * On the no oppose votes I have understood from your previous thoughts that the intention is to stimulate a more positive and less harsh atmosphere as compared to what you can experience at FPC. I think the intention is good but I also see some potential problems. Say you have two-three happy-go-easy reviewers who support just about any nominations. The more more experienced, criticla reviewers will then natural post some comments stating something like. "I really think it would be a very, very bad idea to promote this image as VP as there is image 1, image 2, and image 3, which are clearly better illustrations". Such a comment is really an oppose wlthough not formally and the closer wil somehow have to take it into consideration making the closing procedure more susceptible to the personal opinion of the closer. And in case you want to generally disallow critical comments, I think you loose credibility of the nomination process. In your original proposal where you ad the certified assessors (which i agree is a bad idea for ther reasns which you have also later repeated), this was not a problem as the certified assessors would not be of the happy-go-easy type. However by abandoning the CAs (which is sensible), I think you also have to abandon the idea of no oppose votes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#How_to_comment|How to Comment]]

message: *Add your own test nom if you like; it works basically as I propose it will at PPR. --jjron (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#Current_nominations|Nomination template/layout]]

message: *Some additions to the original proposal. Perhaps the most notable is the addition to the EV criteria that the image has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month. Thoughts on that? I also suggested in my original proposal that it perhaps should only be for Wikipedian created content; any thoughts there? --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#Valued_Picture_Criteria|Valued Picture Criteria]]

message: * Concerning the option 2 of shamelessly stealing the commons:COM:VI logo, I would prefer to use another logo. I fear it will cause some confusion where users cannot distinguish between COM:VI and WP:VP if they get the same logo. The two projects have quite similar overall goals, namely to promote images of value to each specific project. However, the implementation details are quite different, the emphasis in the guidelines are quite different, so the logos should be somehow different too. I would propose to derive a new logo from the Commons VI logo, by, e.g., adding an "en" subscript to the "V" letter and/or perhaps use a different colour scheme. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#VP_Promotion_Template|VP Promotion Template]]

message: I suggest usage of the background colour purple, "CECEFA".
Example usage:
	Your nomination for Valued Picture status, :Image:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg, gained sufficient support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. If you would like to nominate either this or another image for Featured Picture status please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. --Muhammad(talk) 19:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#VP_Nominator_Template|VP Nominator/Creator Templates]]

message: *Having thought a little more on this, I think it's not a bad idea to link to the main article and state the creator, like is done in the Featured Picture subpages (but is not done in the FP Thumbs Gallery). Takes slightly longer for the closer though. --jjron (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jjron/VP_Trial#VP_Gallery_Page|VP Gallery Page]]

message: *I propose the 1st of June, 2008 to switch across to the new process, pending what happens in the discussions here. --jjron (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: When to 'go live'?

message: * WikiProject Council/Proposals is a good place to gauge support for a WikiProject valued pictures before putting a lot of effort into creating a more detailed project page. -- Suntag ☼ 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Comments

message: The peer review needs links to the pages that the images appears in, it is useful for reference when considering something.Noodle snacks (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Templates updated for this. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages this image appears in 

message: The project is up and running. I have edited the peer review page to fit with the VP project, and added to the instructions page. Any nominations are welcome. Elucidate (light up) 12:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Valued pictures]] 

message: Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process.  Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here.  We welcome your input!
  Maedin\talk 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to the Featured picture process 

message: I cannot find instructions on how to nominate a picture for delisting. I'd appreciate a pointer, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nominations_for_delisting (thanks to Armadillopteryx) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How to nominate a picture for delisting?

message: I know barely anything about photographic techniques and I have no access to photo editing software. But sometimes, over the course of my Wikipedia browsing, I'll come across a high quality image that, in my unqualified opinion, I think might stand a good shot at becoming a FP. Would it be worth putting these images up for peer review here first, or is PPR really only for users who have the capability to edit the images if required? Thanks in advance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I may well do that then, thanks a lot for the response. To be honest, I'm really not confident enough in my image-assessing abilities to nominate them at FPC right away. How many open peer reviews are allowed per user at any one time? Is it the same as at WP:PR, i.e. just the one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *There isn't really a limit, although I'd probably keep it under 5-7 at a time so that the page stays manageable and everything gets attention. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of PPR 

message: I think it might be prudent to put in the header that this page usually has low traffic and it could take several days or even a week or two for someone to come by and review a picture. I still think this project has utility for FPC and should be used, just doesn't seem like many people bother to watch it. I'm definitely at fault for not checking it regularly though. ;-\. Maybe we could put a list of a few people who are willing in the header that could be pinged on their talk page if someone has an image that hasn't been reviewed for say a while (3,4+ days) that they can politely ask to stop by and review it. Might help, I donno. — raekyt 22:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow participation 

message: See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Mark "Picture Peer Review" as historical. Pine✉ 08:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To actually mark it as historical it will need to be really gutted.. like VPC was... to prevent people from still trying to use it and being confused. — raekyt 06:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And it probably should go through an MfD like VPC did.. — raekyt 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Someone needs to go through and do a proper closure of this project if that's the decision, i.e. delete all the nomination pages, replace the content of the main page to just marked historical, etc... otherwise it's very confusing and people will keep trying to use it. — raekyt 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to mark Picture Peer Review as historical