Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria

message: I'm thinking of uploading this photo I took and nominating it for FP.  I'm reasonably sure it meets the technical criteria, but I'm unclear on how to show it meets "Is verifiable".  To the best of my knowledge, it's an adult male house finch, but that's basically WP:OR, as I'm not an acknowledged expert on bird identification.  On the other hand, that seems to be the norm with "own work" FPs of animals, of which there are many.  So how does this actually work?  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: any thoughts on this? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  can you check the link? It's not working for me (permission). I may not be the best person to answer, as I find enwp's featured picture process/criteria to be rather cumbersome and inconsistently applied, but certainly it's true that some OR is typically required of the photos. Even if I take a picture of, say, a famous musician, it's still just me saying that's who it is and someone else verifying by googling the musician's name and giving it their best judgment. We can't submit our own photos if we take a very strict view of V/OR here. On Commons, there aren't many people who regularly check nominees for accuracy. Charles is one. I would only typically scrutinize ID if what's written strikes me as amiss (but if it's outside North America, it probably wouldn't seem amiss to me beyond the level of order). Happy to take a look when the link works, though. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Sigh.  Flickr can be so stupid sometimes.  Apparently, by default, making an album public doesn't make each individual image in it public.  I think it's fixed now, but just in case, here's the album link. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure looks like a house finch to me. Streaking under the wing, color of the cheeks, and overall hue suggest house rather than purple finch, which is the main other species house finches get mixed up with around these parts. As for whether it's a FP on enwp, I'd defer to those who are more active here. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Hi Roy, whenever I have issues identifying a species, I ask the biologists on the German Wikipedia (my main wiki). They've created a super helpful system, which you can find at Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung ("Bestimmung" = Identification). Usually, you'll get an answer within 24 hours and I'm more than happy to ask about your finch image if you'd like me to (requires the image to be on Commons; don't worry about the file name, I'm a file mover and we can fix that later). Other than that I'm subscribed to Cornell's Birds of the World and could check the species there as well. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A few people have recommended this resource on dewp to me. It sounds much more functional than what I had originally tried: asking on a Commons Village Pump. :) I tend to use the "/r/whatsthisbird" subreddit, but  presented to WikiWednesday yesterday making pretty strong argument to get on the iNaturalist train, too. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been contributing to iNaturalist for a while myself and can confirm that their reviews are helpful (although I learned more by asking the biologists on the German Wikipedia because they're most often willing to answer follow-up questions). Other than that, I just looked the House Finch up on Birds of the World and the only similar species are the Purple Finch (C. purpureus) and the Cassin's Finch (C. cassini). Now, the House Finch differs from the Purple Finch by "lack of heavy carotenoid coloration on nape, back, and wing coverts", and from Cassin's Finch "by heavy ventral streaking and lack of distinctive back streaks." – So, I'd say you assessment is correct, its an adult male Haemorhous mexicanus. Best --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks very much.  I uploaded a few from that album a while ago.  I think this search should find them. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Roy, this is an easy bird to identify as others have said. Identification can be very time-consuming. LBJs (Little Brown Jobs) are a nightmare. This is how I work. If I'm in the field I ask a nearby birder or guide. I check birding websites to see what was around that day. I check the internet, including Commons and Flickr. I look up the likely species in a field guide, trying to establish subspecies, sex, plumage, form, age (e.g. juvenile) etc. I always buy the best field guide I can for the territory. I check id on birdsoftheworld. I do not find iNaturalist reliable. I search reliable private websites for the territory (like sharpphotography!!). I contact known experts if really stuck. This is easier for me as I contribute free images to field guides. Every year I have to correct the identifications of a handful of my images.The other relevant issue is submitting an image to FP on Wikipedia. I submit potential FPs to FP at Commons first, so that technical quality is OK, then the issue here is usually about encyclopaedic value. Your image would not pass FP at Commons and might struggle at QI, which is where FP candidates should be tested first. FP image candidates have to have been on Wikipedia for 7 days - they are often the lead image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thank you for your help.  I've nominated this for QI. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

text:  Is the background artificial, Roy? The bird looks as if it has been 'cut out'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Heh, I was waiting for somebody to ask that :-)  No, it's just a white fence about 30 feet behind the bird that just got DOF'd out of existence. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Try for a natural perch and a natural background... Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes a bird photo verifiable? 

message: Looks like we had a couple manual archives ("archive 1" and "archive 2") that were more than a decade old, but the only ones in the archivebox. Then we had one other that was being autoarchived, "Archive 1". I've merged the first two into the latter and replaced the archives box with talk header. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving