Talk:Beachside photos of New Jersey governor draw criticism, photo-mashups during state budget crisis

Review of revision 4328001 [Not ready]

Revision 4328001 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This can be arranged as a news story. However, the way it is now presented is clearly non-neutral. Consider the lede as now written. Who is the actor? A photographer: "[On] Saturday, a photographer took a long-distance snapshot [...]". Why is this of interest? Evidently because the reader is supposed to be outraged that Christie was doing this. If the reader isn't outraged, then the lede doesn't offer relevance. So when the article is set up this way, it's inherently biased; it's basically presenting the story as a "gotcha!" piece. The problem would probably be eliminated if the event were people who are part of the story raising a fuss over the photograph (note that journalists are not usually part of the story, so quoting a CNN commentator is unlikely to be appropriate). It might even be possible to keep the existing headline. However, atm controversy, far from being the focus summarized by the lede, is not mentioned until the third paragraph. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4328001 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This can be arranged as a news story. However, the way it is now presented is clearly non-neutral. Consider the lede as now written. Who is the actor? A photographer: "[On] Saturday, a photographer took a long-distance snapshot [...]". Why is this of interest? Evidently because the reader is supposed to be outraged that Christie was doing this. If the reader isn't outraged, then the lede doesn't offer relevance. So when the article is set up this way, it's inherently biased; it's basically presenting the story as a "gotcha!" piece. The problem would probably be eliminated if the event were people who are part of the story raising a fuss over the photograph (note that journalists are not usually part of the story, so quoting a CNN commentator is unlikely to be appropriate). It might even be possible to keep the existing headline. However, atm controversy, far from being the focus summarized by the lede, is not mentioned until the third paragraph. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4328473 [Passed]

Revision 4328473 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The mention of events late Monday allow (barely) for treating this as not-yet-stale a few hours into Thursday UTC. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4328473 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The mention of events late Monday allow (barely) for treating this as not-yet-stale a few hours into Thursday UTC. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Photo to insert

• 
• 
• 

Which photo should I use in the article? --George Ho (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Any of these seems a plausible choice to me. Acagastya is apparently disinclined to any such image; but historically, we've encouraged used of some image on an article. I don't know what they have in mind as a principle, in this case. --Pi zero (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction

{{editprotected}} Without looking at the EXIF data, we can not decide if it was indeed manipulated with Adobe Photoshop. It can be GNU's Image Manipulation Programme (GIMP). Is the EXIF data available? Any source was able to prove it was Photoshop? If not, please add a {{correction}} template clarifying it could be any software — not necessarily Photoshop.
acagastya 09:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be treated as a big problem. It doesn't say they used Photoshop, it says "Photoshop and similar programs". If you would like it to say "Photoshop or similar programs" (without the emphasis) I think we could do that, because it doesn't really change the meaning, just clarifies slightly.

How would you prefer to have phrased it, in the first place? --Pi zero (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do we explicitly say Photoshop? It has been 24 hours and removing Photoshop will be a substantial change.
acagastya 12:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's used as a example that is commonly recognized; probably the most commonly recognized example, so common that Wiktionary lists photoshop as a common verb. Although I don't think it's problematic enough to justify a {{correction}}, I really would be interested in a suggestion for an alternative phrasing that avoids using such an example — because while we don't respond to flaws in an article by tweaking it forever like Wikipedia does, we do seek to learn from those flaws how to do better in future articles. --Pi zero (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Photoshop is Adobe's Trademark, besides, see this. Here's what I'ld say:

1. "Regardless of whether they shared Jenkins' opinion, photos of the Governor in his beach gear were added to images of television programs such as Jersey Shore and The Sopranos, movies like Jaws, and one scene from the Oval Office by using digital manipulating applications."
2. Digitally manipulated images of governor in his beach gear in the tv programmes [...] circulated ... regardless of [...] opinion.
   acagastya 14:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't even understand what the issue is here. Removed the tag. Please resubmit if this is still an issue and clarify. --SVTCobra 18:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Read the article, and you would understand. You just can't jump onto a moving vehicle.
•–• 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done photoshopping has become ubiquitous and a neolgism, much like xeroxing and hoovering did years ago. The language in the article further takes into account that it is not the only brand. --SVTCobra 17:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)