Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Rush Street (Chicago)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Rush Street (Chicago)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed at WP:FAC. The main reason for the fail was the use of the new {{multiple image}} template to incorporate about 30 images into the article. The images are arranged so as to take up less than 400px width and since most view at either 1280 or 1024 wide and many view with even wider resolutions when the article is viewed on almost any full screen there will be no squeezing. I used an additional template to box the images to make them seem more organized and less cluttered. I am looking for ways to improve the article other than by removing images because I don't think that would improve the article.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This is never going to get featured if you continue on being stubborn about the images. Wikipedia isn't a picture book - it's an encyclopedia. Very few encyclopedias even have a picture for each article (most are purely text). And so, that being said, I have narrowed the images down to one per section, and added a Commons template at the bottom (where readers can view an entire gallery of Rush Street pictures for their own pleasure).
  • You really love those images so much...but there isn't even a gallery page for them at the Wikimedia Commons. I've added a link to one on the Wikipedia page, so I think you should better go and create it.
  • Your statement about resolution is incorrect. Most computer users use 1024 x 768, actually.
  • A full copyedit is needed by an editor new to the text (so, not yourself). I suggest you take a look at the lists of copyeditors at both Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers.
  • Good luck!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to agree. That is what Commons is for and it's not what Wikipedia is for. And just as another data point, I think many pro web designers still design their pages to work on 800x600 because a decent proportion of people still use that. And while I think there could be some in between, the image gallery templates are over the top. - Taxman Talk 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 5% still view at 800 wide. That is why I restricted the images to less than 400 px wide in total. Do you see a lot squeezing at 800 wide? Anyone who is viewing at 800 px knows that problems they experience in viewing are partly their own fault for their resolution choice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three more ways of looking at this issue - 1) I looked at the most recent National Geographic I could find and counted images in two of the main articles. They used 13 images each (including maps). This is from a magazine that can hire the some of the best photographers and cartographers in the world, and several of these images were full page or even gatefold images. My guess is Wikipedia's text to image ratio is not as high. 2) When there are so many images crammed into tiny thumbnails, none of them really stands out or adds much to the article. By trying to include everything, you add nothing (or by trying not to lose any images, you essentially lose them all). 3) Make sure the images are the most relevant and hopefully striking ones you can find. I liked the aerial view of the street at night, then realized it was not of Rush Street at all, just taken from a hotel on Rush St but of Ohio St and Michigan Ave. How is that relevant? It has been years since I was on Rush Street, but would a night shot of the bar signs be useful?
    1)Here is why the National Geographic argument fails. They can not use many small images because you can not click through in a magazine to see the full image. They face technological limitations that WP does not face with its interactivity.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2)I am not trying to geT WP:FPs here. I am trying to depict the encyclopedic content of the article in picture form. If you are trying to learn about a subject any text is aided by a picture. In this case, each image aids a portion of the text. For each image that you think should be removed can you explain why the accompanying text is better without an image about it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3)Read the text. It discusses how several notable hotels are situated between Rush Street (Chicago) and the Magnificent Mile. Is there a better (or as you say more relevant and striking) image than the one chosen? This image gives readers an understanding and perspective of the proximity of the streets.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a talented photographer and I know you have at least one FP (congrats!). But just as we cannot include every tiny fact in an article, so too we cannot include every available image. Use of {{commonscat}} lets interested readers browse all the pictures. If you want I can suggest some example articles that use this. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is my point: 1.)Pictures provide information. 2.)WP:PRESERVE.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you will note that as per WP:PRESERVE instead of eliminating pictures, I have been adding text to add balance to the article. That is the WP way.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we will have to agree to disagree. WP:PRESERVE says nothing about images, although it does say facts can be moved to new articles. I believe moving images to Commons and linking to them there preserves them and the information they contain. If you want a FA that does this, see Joseph Priestley House, which has twelve images in the article (one fair use) and a total of 40 (11 from the article and 29 more) on Commons. Here's a photo suggestion for you - take a picture of every intersction on Rush St. when the sun is out and paste them together in one very wide image, with a brief caption at th bottom of each - then use {{wide image}}. I don't see this getting community consensus to become FA with its current image layout. I think the multiple images in one frame can be useful in some circumstances - I really like the three photo sequence in Crown Fountain showing the mouth puckering and water spouting out - but there can be too much of a sometimes good thing (and this is it). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRESERVE applies if you believe images add information to articles. If you believe images impart information, then you need to tell me which of the seven exceptions apply for their removal to commons. Otherwise the proper way to look at multiple images is to look at each image and think about the information that it imparts. Then look at the text and analyze how the text might be better balanced in relation to the information in the images. In the context of Rush Street the constructive response (rather than ripping images out) would be to say Images X, Y and Z are not really put in context in the article. You could improve the information delivery to the reader by better incorporating them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that if you did this, then the text would expand and the text to image ratio would improve.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rush_Street_(Chicago)/archive1&oldid=1084305343"