Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Reconstruction of Holt Castle
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2016 at 16:58:49 (UTC)
- Reason
- Holt Castle was demolished in the 17th century and isn't much to look at now. This video recreates the castle c1495 and takes the viewer on a tour of both the exterior and interior.
Rick Turner and Chris Jones-Jenkins undertook extensive research to produce this archaeological reconstruction. Rick Turner was Inspector of Ancient Monuments with Cadw and Chris Jones-Jenkins has produced reconstruction drawings for Cadw and English Heritage. Mint Motion created this video based on the 3D model they produced. The work is openly licensed and was done for the Castle Studies Trust, a charity for which I am a trustee. Richard Nevell (talk)
- Articles in which this image appears
- Holt Castle, Castles in Great Britain and Ireland
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/Others
- Creator
- Rick Turner, Chris Jones-Jenkins, and Mint Motion for the Castle Studies Trust.
- Support as nominator – Richard Nevell (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose- Nothing wrong with the reconstruction itself (that I can see) but including the title card comes across too much as advertising. For CC purposes, a hyperlink is sufficient for attribution. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Crisco1492 Sca: I have removed the title card and re-uploaded the file. I understand the other comments about the textures, but that is beyond my abilities and commissioning the company to redo the video once would probably be too expensive. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Richard Nevell, the video was better with the title card. It's a video, titles are expected, and knowing that it was by the Castles Studies Trust gives the reader an idea of the research behind the reconstruction. You cannot expect the reader to watch all the way to the end of the video, or to click through to the video info page, I bet most readers wouldn't even know how to click through to the video info page. - hahnchen 20:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree that the title card helped frame why the content can be taken seriously. And YouTube analytics indicate around half the viewers watch to the end credits, so that's a good chunk who might not get the context. It was on screen for five or six seconds. User:Crisco 1492 User:Hahnchen, would reducing it to say two seconds be an acceptable middle ground between establishing the content and context of the video and a laying concerns about advertising? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- On Youtube, having the credit card is fine. On Wikipedia, we have policies such as Wikipedia:WATERMARK which are against the inclusion of watermarks. "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion, titles, etc. and is used in the related article. Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit or title forms an integral part of the composition." "Images" in this case can be understood as both still images and moving images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see WP:WATERMARK applying to video, it's clearly written for static images. I can understand opposing a video with a watermark such as a digital on-screen graphic, which like a still image watermark is visible throughout, but the context provided by the title card is valuable. Just ignore the concerns and make the video better. - hahnchen 01:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Unless WP:WATERMARK explicitly states video is not included, it should be assumed to be, the same as video being included in (for instance) featured pictures. Commons likewise is against including visible watermarks in images (though they, too, do not make any explicit distinction between still and moving images). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- It explicitly refers to "photo credits". None of the talk pages even consider video. I find it bizarre that a title card is referred to a watermark. If you're going to follow your "moving images" interpretation of WP:WATERMARK to the letter, you should be opposing based on the end credits. Most readers will not even know how to navigate to the video image page. - hahnchen 11:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Unless WP:WATERMARK explicitly states video is not included, it should be assumed to be, the same as video being included in (for instance) featured pictures. Commons likewise is against including visible watermarks in images (though they, too, do not make any explicit distinction between still and moving images). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see WP:WATERMARK applying to video, it's clearly written for static images. I can understand opposing a video with a watermark such as a digital on-screen graphic, which like a still image watermark is visible throughout, but the context provided by the title card is valuable. Just ignore the concerns and make the video better. - hahnchen 01:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- On Youtube, having the credit card is fine. On Wikipedia, we have policies such as Wikipedia:WATERMARK which are against the inclusion of watermarks. "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion, titles, etc. and is used in the related article. Exceptions may be made for historic images when the credit or title forms an integral part of the composition." "Images" in this case can be understood as both still images and moving images. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do agree that the title card helped frame why the content can be taken seriously. And YouTube analytics indicate around half the viewers watch to the end credits, so that's a good chunk who might not get the context. It was on screen for five or six seconds. User:Crisco 1492 User:Hahnchen, would reducing it to say two seconds be an acceptable middle ground between establishing the content and context of the video and a laying concerns about advertising? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- User:Richard Nevell, the video was better with the title card. It's a video, titles are expected, and knowing that it was by the Castles Studies Trust gives the reader an idea of the research behind the reconstruction. You cannot expect the reader to watch all the way to the end of the video, or to click through to the video info page, I bet most readers wouldn't even know how to click through to the video info page. - hahnchen 20:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Crisco1492 Sca: I have removed the title card and re-uploaded the file. I understand the other comments about the textures, but that is beyond my abilities and commissioning the company to redo the video once would probably be too expensive. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Conditional Support now, assuming the title credits stay out. Otherwise oppose. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC) (edited 04:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC))
- Oppose – Per Chris. And I wonder why the walls are that rosy-pinkish hue. Sca (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Sca: Look at the end shot: It's reflecting the stone used. This is actually a really good reconstruction, but I'd like to see some better texturing. It's all a bit early-90s-looking because of the very simple textures, when the underlying work is superb. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Adam, I see what you mean. But yes, the technique looks flat and decidedly basic. Sca (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- And part of that is understandable in an effort to reduce the amount of extraneous detail being read in. However... I think that somewhat more would help here at FP. But at the same time... it's still an excellent work, and presents research very well. So, on EV, I'd support, but on visuals I'd weak oppose... Hm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Adam, I see what you mean. But yes, the technique looks flat and decidedly basic. Sca (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - wow, extreme EV, not only for this castle but also medieval castles in general. This type of content is severely lacking on WP and the creators should be applauded for releasing it under a free license. Renata (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I find this a highly valuable illustration of the article. However I also see the non-natural vivid colour as a distracting weakness. The shadow is also poorly chosen, as it comes from the north-north-west at ca.45° angle - this is not possible at its location in the northern hemisphere. Also agree with Cris that the credits could be cropped. All these changes are relatively easy to do for the creators of the CAD model. -ELEKHHT 23:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Support- For an idea of the layout, I prefer clean lines over photorealistic textures. I find the flickering lighting from the "camera" mildly annoying. But I trust that the scholarship behind this is second to none. - hahnchen 12:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)- Conditional Support - On the reinstatement of the title card, it's where the trust comes from. You cannot expect the reader to click through to the description page or watch till the visible end credits. Oppose otherwise. The nominator believes the video is better with the title card, so why pander? - hahnchen 11:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Suppose I really don't know how to vote. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 17:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)