Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Demetri McCamey signals a play

Demetri McCamey signals a play


This is the finest example that WP has of a point guard signalling a play in basketball. The problem is that the article for point guard is pretty deficient. It is basically a bunch of unreffed WP:OR and does not describe this act of a point guard signaling a play. I am not sure how much responsibility I have for augmenting the article other than by adding the picture and how much it would help the nomination.

Additionally, during the nomination, there was never final agreement on which edit to nominate. On the last day of the nomination new instructions were received on further edits. It is not clear whether one of the supporting voters even was aware of the change by the time of the close of the nomination. The editor who gave the instruction to make further edits never acknowledged if the final edit was actually what he was asking for. Thus, I am here to get an understanding on how best to edit this image and re-nominate it. I would like advice on both editing the article and commentary on the point guard article an how much it should say about signaling to bring out the EV in this photo.


 * Articles this image appears in:Point guard Assist (basketball) 2009–10 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team Demetri McCamey St. Joseph High School (Westchester, Illinois) 2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season


 * Creator:Joshua Beckman (flickr user PhotoVandal)


 * Suggested by: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * At Featured picture candidates/Demetri McCamey signals a play its final status was as follows:
 * switched support from edit 2 to edit 3 on final day.
 * supported edit 2, but did not acknowledge the creation of and consideration of edit 3 (no WP edits between final edit posting and close of nomination)
 * infrequent editor who seemed to still be giving instructions for further editing and did not acknowledge creation of and consideration of edit 3 (no WP edits between final instruction and closing of nomination)
 * commented on need for correction and never supported any edits but did not acknowledge creation of and consideration of edit 3 (one WP edit between final edit posting and close of nomination)


 * I just want to make sure edit 3 is the best I can get and everyone gets a chance to consider it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony, I've been busy so unfortunately I didn't get a chance to respond properly. My only involvement in this nom, as you said, was to comment on the tilt. I didn't feel strongly enough about the image enough to place my vote. I think either Edit 2 or 3 are fine technically. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me whether the point guard article would seem to be a much higher EV usage if it described point guard signaling of plays.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about that. Just make sure you explain what he's doing in the caption, and how it relates to the role of Point Guard. Nautica Shad es  15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO Edit 3 is clearly the best. Edit 2, having had 'perspective correction' has stretched the background including crowd members, and even slightly stretched the upper parts of the player, distorting him, and yet still left the bottom of the image tilted. Edit 3 being a simple tilt correction has straightened the image appropriately (a quick check looked quite straight). I notice filesize is considerably lower than the other edits, and assume quality hasn't been downgraded (again in my quick check it didn't appear any worse and should be OK). In terms of EV I really think it needs to be judged in terms of the Demetri McCamey article. It's too broadly spread across other articles to make a balanced decision, and if you wanted to focus it as an illustration of the point guard article I don't think it has sufficient EV (too easily replaceable by more high profile player, etc). Would therefore be good to use it more prominently in his article, probably swapping it with that awkward looking photo in the taxobox (and I don't really know why all the images have dates in the captions). In terms of voting I was a bit in the Diliff camp, where I probably didn't feel strongly enough about it, but was also mindful that it needed those fixes, and had some other technical questions. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconder:

