 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
In just a few short weeks learning the ropes at the Featured Picture Candidates page, I have noticed a disturbing phenomenon among many regular (and many non-regular) Featured Picture reviewers. This is the tendency for people to observe certain effects in photographs of phenomena they have never personally witnessed, and instantly dismiss the photos as "over-processed",[1] or that the utilized focal length, lens type, perspective, etc. was unnecessary to capture the phenomenon.[2] Broad judgments like this are unfair to the photographer, as well as other reviewers, who may give undue weight to the testimony of these reviewers who appear to be experts. Care should be taken when making broad speculation about the nature of a certain photographic feature.
Notes edit
- ^ I have personally witnessed two cases (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Noctilucent clouds bargerveen.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pyrocumulus clouds) in just my first few weeks at WP:FPC.
- ^ Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Fog bow, Glory and the Spectre of the Brocken is the one example to which I was pointed.
