Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2015/Interview

This month The Bugle brings you an interview with some of the editors who regularly participate in Wikipedia's featured picture process. They discuss what makes for a good military-themed photo, the scope of images which are nominated, and their advice for newcomers to featured pictures. Don't forget that if you have a good topic for a future Bugle edition, please add it on our newsletter's main talk page.


 * Thank you for agreeing to participate. What drew you to Wikipedia's featured picture process?
 * I joined FPC around 2011 because I wanted to familiarize myself with the various featured content processes. Since I enjoy photography (though at the time I didn't have a proper camera) I found FPC interesting. Since I bought a DSLR back in 2013, I've learned a lot through the process. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That was so long ago that I can't remember! --Pine✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time, I was doing a lot of work in building up Gilbert and Sullivan related operas, and in my research, began discovering how extremely good a lot of ephemeral Victorian illustrations were, and soon began learning - from reading around what I had actually intended to research, about fascinating subjects like the Franco-Prussian War, or the hopes placed by Britain on then-crown prince Frederick of Prussia, apparently - and all accounts seem to hold this up - a calm, intelligent man who wanted to encourage peace, but who only got the kingship far too late, and after his father had thoroughly indoctrinated his son to be favourable towards war. His son's attitude had certain consequences in history. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * FPC seemed like a good opportunity to expand Wikipedia's numismatic resources. I also enjoy photography and have had several of my images become FP. I have learned a great deal about photography from those more experienced than me, and have engaged in numismatic research to understand some of the objects I have come across in the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian.--Godot13 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * How did you come to choose some of the images you've worked on? Where did you source these images from?
 * It depends on the image. I have taken some pictures of military equipment (the kris featured picture, for instance) and found others either on Wikipedia or on other websites. Most of the military history images I've nominated are ultimately sourced to the US government, either through the Library of Congress, the military, or the National Archives and Records Administration. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Occasionally I deliberately look for images to feature, and at other times I stumble across images in my travels that I think are reasonable candidates for FP status. --Pine✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It varies. I live in a country where libraries and other shops make historical material - to a point - fairly affordable. I also know of several archives - Gallica and The Library of Congress being the big ones - that cover a lot of the material that can't be easily gotten any other way. I do budget a small amount a month for any subject of particular importance. As for what I am working on? If there's any important anniversaries coming up, I'll work on that, I try to support featured articles, and I follow my interests as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My images have generally been my own travel photographs, or images I have created of numismatic objects from the National Numismatic Collection at the National Museum of American History (NMAH).--Godot13 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * How much work goes into preparing a "typical" featured picture nomination and supporting the FPC? Do you usually need to edit the image or clarify details around what it depicts or its source?
 * Again, it depends on the image. Modern photographs can often be nominated without further editing. Older images, such as this JATO image, often need some restoration, completion of which can take an hour, two hours, or even several days. For photographs I take myself, there is editing in software such as Lightroom to bring out the colors for web display, as well as (for instance) removing backgrounds for individual objects shot in a light tent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I edit images only rarely. On the other hand, Adam Cuerden regularly restores images, and Godot13 physically scans currency images for upload. The texts of the nominations can sometimes be time-consuming, particularly if authenticity or copyright issues need to be investigated. The time per nomination varies widely. --Pine✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a very, very rough rule of thumb, but for a fairly average, not particularly damaged image, I can maybe manage a megapixel (a 1000x1000 pixel area) per hour on average just removing dust, dirt, simple scratches and the like. Once you get complicated damage, extensive damage, or, for example, complicated patterns that have to be maintained despite parts being missing from damage, that ratio can go up rapidly. There's also some paradoxical aspects: For example, lithographs are made by etching a rock slab with acid. The longer any one section is etched, the more pits form, and the pits can hold ink and move it onto a page. This means that a lithograph is sort of made of denser or less dense areas of something that resembles television static. Minor dust spots or ink blots disappear into that. But they will still be perfectly visible on the blank paper around the lithograph, meaning I have occasionally spent more time on the blank paper surrounding an image than on the image itself. - Adam Cuerden
 * Completely depends on the image. My own photos could take half and hour to a few hours to process. Banknotes and coins from the NMAH are processed on a very basic level, as they are direct representations of specific objects. To edit or restore them would produce inaccurate archival record of an accessioned museum object. Restorations can take the longest (I've worked on a just cleaning a single image for roughly 30 hours over the course of a week).--Godot13 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What are your impressions of Wikipedia's military-themed featured picture nominees? Do you have any suggestions for new areas which could be covered, or sources of images which are under- or over-utilised?
 * Perhaps it is a bit obvious, but US military subjects are much better represented at FPC than other countries'. This is because of the US copyright law, which requires works of US government employees completed as part of their duties to be in the public domain. I would like to see better coverage of non-US militaries, but it is a challenge to find works which are not copyright violations, or to photograph such works. Another subject matter is firearms; most of Wikipedia's images of the weapons themselves are pretty bad. It would be nice to have "product shots" of these items. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My personal impression is that, among military subjects, naval subjects have disproportionately good representation in Featured pictures, with army subjects being second. That might be because of their longer histories and/or greater numbers compared to air force, marine, and irregular warfare units. Cyber-conflicts, electronic warfare, and space warfare are particularly underrepresented in featured pictures, probably because they are so new and because images relevant to them are classified in many cases. --Pine✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first weekly illustrated newspaper, The Illustrated London News launched in 1842, and was followed by many others, Harper's Weekly, L'Illustration, and so on. This really marks a watershed in availability of images. For example, from 1870 to 1871 The Illustrated London News alone published hundreds of high-quality images, using artists sent to the scene, documenting the Franco-Prussian War, and you get similar levels of coverage for everything else in that era. Images tended to lag a couple weeks behind events, but they're contemporary, detailed, and have both high encyclopædic value and usually high artistic value - for example William Simpson was one of those artists documenting the Franco-Prussian War.
 * This, however, means that events before 1842 or so tend to be far worse documented, and, of course, there's also a strong bias in coverage towards European and American events, and, of course, when a country is actively at war, the newspapers of that country will tend towards their own country's side. Still, though, covering wars before 1842 is much, much harder, as, in a lot of cases, key illustrative paintings might be kept in "No Photography" zones, lithographs might be exceptionally expensive due to age and rarity, and so on. I'd say that the period 1842 to 1922 I could probably document - to some extent - pretty much any conflict that involved Europeans, before 1842 would be a complete crapshoot, and after 1922, copyright issues creep in and the points Chris brings up begin to dominate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you found the Military History Wikiproject to provide good support (including critical assessments) for potential featured pictures? Do you have any suggestions for how this could be improved?
 * I have not had many dealings with MilHist in the FP process. There are some editors active at FPC who are prominent members of MilHist, but in general the two worlds are separate. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't actively solicit MilHist input, although most of the MilHist regulars who participate at WP:FPC contribute constructively. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but, not really. For example, I personally kept Template:WPMILHIST Announcements up to date on featured pictures for most of a year. I'm not sure that a single comment on any nomination ever emerged from that. It's understandable, don't get me wrong: people aren't required to be interested in every single area, but there really doesn't seem to be much interest in images as such in the project, although I've had productive collaborations with members in the past on specific projects. I do find, though, that keeping up can be difficult - for example, I rather burned out on German pre-World War I ships for a while, simply because, given the damaged copies we had, each image was taking several days of work. I find that major restoration projects are best broken up with a diet of minor restorations, or you will burn out, and a lot of the most important military history images are major restorations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What are the main issues which editors who are new to the FP process should take into account when participating in reviews or nominating images?
 * The criteria. FPC is not just "a pretty picture contest". We look for high quality images depicting encyclopedic subjects in an encyclopedic manner. Yes, there are technical criteria that have to be met, and there is always going to be a subjective element to reviewing, but the "attractiveness" of an image is not the foremost consideration. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My impression is that "encyclopedic value" matters more on English Wikipedia for FP candidates, while technical and aesthetic value get more weight for Commons FP candidates. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've read the featured picture criteria, and understand the subject, you're probably going to be fine. I think members of this project are quite capable of realizing that, for example, a 19th century photograph, an early 20th century one, and a modern photograph are going to have very different quality levels, and that that is normal and should be factored in to the judgement. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any other points you'd like to raise that we haven't covered in this interview, or parting advice that you'd like to offer?
 * The discussions on English Wikipedia's FPC pages tend to be civil, and a new FPC contributor can easily ask for advice on the FPC talk page or reach out directly to regular FPC participants. New contributors can also observe how the regulars behave, and they can cast some votes on existing nominations before starting their own. Overall I feel that FPC is one of the more enjoyable places on English Wikipedia, and even new Wikipedians who have good eyes for photography, diagrams, maps, or art can quickly become productive contributors. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 01:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would second Pine's advice. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)