Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yinka Shonibare

Yinka Shonibare CBE at the unveiling of Hibiscus Rising[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2024 at 15:13:18 (UTC)

Alt – crop suggestion (CSS image crop)

Reason: This is my first nomination. For full disclosure, uploading this and other images was made as part of a paid project, see WP:GLAM/LEEDS 2023. However, I think this image is a potential nomination for a Featured Pictures as it fulfills, to my mind, the criteria. 1) It is a high standard - Shonibare is centred in the image, with the sculpture behind, with the wider shot showing the urban setting of the work. 2) It is high resolution. 3) I think it is a compelling image, showing not just a Nigerian artist, but a Nigerian disabled artist, next to their work. The sculpture is the first permanent outdoor piece by Shonibare, which makes it significant. Other images of Shonibare are available, uploaded as part of the same project, however I think the composition here says much about his life and career. 4) It has a free license. 5) The image has EV - it is used (via Wikidata) in articles on ARZ, IG and SV Wikipedias, as well as EN. It enhances Wikipedia's content at the intersection of blackness and disability. 6) It is verifiable, see Hibiscus Rising. 7) I think the file description is good - if not I would appreciate feedback on what else to expand. 8) I am unsure what manipulation was made by the original photographer, but it does not seem to me to be manipulated much. Again I would appreciate experienced voices on this.
Articles in which this image appears: Yinka Shonibare, Igbo WP, EN WP, ARZ WP, SV WP
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Artists and writers
Creator: David Lindsay, uploaded by User:Lajmmoore

Support as nominator – Lajmmoore (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a place for corporate/institutional promotion. Also, you are not supposed to upload other people's photos. What you doing is, I'm sure, well intentioned, but I'm very uneasy about people who are paid to upload images to Wikipedia (via Commons) to support Leeds. This is no FP composition, and needs lots of technical work (perspective/shadows), but that was not what I wanted to talk about. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Charlesjsharp thank you for your comments on the image, I understand better now, and fully accept that the image composition is not quite right for this project. In relation to the other points:
- On paid editing: I volunteer as an editor as well, so understand the unease. However I did look carefully in the FP guidelines to see if this kind of nomination from a paid project was precluded, and couldn't see that discussed. Could you point me to the guideline that I missed? Featured Pictures have already come from paid projects, for exmaple this Talismanic shirt & this view of Japan and this coin of Nader Shah. In comparison, I've made some DYK nominations both as part of paid projects and as an everyday volunteer, and the consensus there seems to be as long as you are open and honest about project you were paid as part of, nomination is OK.
This tutorial is where I got my information from. It states no promotional photos. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of uploading other people's photos - this is an image that was shared under and open licence. Again, I checked the FP guidlines and couldn't see where nominating someone else's image was precluded from this project. I saw that there were many historic images included, as well as images of artworks and objects, where the original artist/photographer isn't (couldn't be due to time passed) involved. Criteria 4 just says an image must be under free licence, it doesn't say that the nominater must also be the original photographer - this mirrors the three nominations above, where people have nominated others' work.
@Charlesjsharp: That page says: "you can’t upload someone else’s [...] promotional photos [unless] the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it – by releasing it under a free license", which (poor grammar notwithstanding) is exactly what happened here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy to retract this nomination or for it to be as closed due to the composition, thank to the instructive comments made Lajmmoore (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Thanks a lot for uploading and nominating for FP. But as Charles mentioned, the composition of the image is not at par with a featured picture we are looking for. For reference, have a look at WP:FP, especially the people subsection to understand the composition and encyclopedic value we want in an image. It is used as a lead image in an infobox, but it does not represent the subject as it is supposed to. The subject(s) are not well defined and shadows are all over the place. Also, you may look at the other nominations to see how a nomination is framed and how the articles that use the image is mentioned. Thanks and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much @The Herald for these constructive comments. It's a lesson in interpretation for me: from this feedback it sounds like for the people section its more usual portrait kind of images that you're supportive of? Lajmmoore (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added a crop suggestion Alt. Also suggest a slight level adjust to pull up the darker areas. The sculpture is ~30 feet tall, so I don't mind the wide angle distortion, it's a part of the composition. I see no issues with copyright or promotion. Lajmmoore, usage in non-English Wiki articles isn't relevant. Bammesk (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support Alt, if the darker areas are lifted slightly. Bammesk (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted no license on Commons. MER-C 11:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MER-C, do you know why it was deleted? I see the stated rationale here, but when I had checked it on Commons (if I remember right), the file page had a CC BY-SA 2.0 license and it had a reviewed-by FlickreviewR bot template. The source link is Here. It's very much the same as this image, copyright-wise. Bammesk (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Commons admin, so I cannot answer your question. MER-C 13:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will ask on Commons. Bammesk (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up @Bammesk - I really appreciate it. I believe there was a mistake over on Commons and it is now undeleted Lajmmoore (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was strange. I reverted the CommonsDelinker bot. Bammesk (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]