Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created and uploaded by Kristian Peters - nominated by 87.150.250.53 or Palmelampius
  •  Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Great subject, but unfortunately it's only .48 MP (minimum is 2). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info There is no such thing as a minimum size for FP --Tony Wills (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as per User:The High Fin Sperm Whale Great subject :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- No explanation or mitiganting reasons for the small size. And I fail to understand why it was promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Start by asking how many microscopic images are candidates for QI, let alone FP. FP doesn't even have a category for microscopic images. Mitigating reasons? Have you ever tried taking microscopic images? One problem is that at high magnification, depth of field is incredibly small, so only a small portion of the object is usually in focus - focus stacking can help. Next the camera on the microscope usually doesn't have any seperate lens system, you can't zoom in, the raw image is a rectangle containing the circular view of the microscope stage as seen down the barrel of the microscope. Unless you want to have lots of black around the edge you crop that off, ie extract a rectangle from within the circle, within the raw image. In this case the object fills the whole cropped image, it is not like an insect or animal that probably on fills a quarter of the field of view at the most. So it is a different category of image, rejecting it out of hand is unreasonable. Is it so common place that we have lost the sense of wonder, of wow!, when we see the insides of a cell? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I believe many of us are well aware of the difficulties posed by traditional microscopic imagery. Still those difficulties are not, per se, enough justification for promotion. On the other hand, the fact that a certain image is not promoted doesn't take away any of its intrinsic encyclopaedic or educational value. As for the sense of wonder, which is a major component of the FPC evaluation, it is totally subjective and varies from reviewer to reviewer. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bullshit! Try to buy a microscope camera under 2Mpx these days. Not possible. And if not a dedicated system, use a T-mount/C-mount and with a +10 Mpx camera you can crop 3/4 and still fulfil the FP requirements. And then there are stacking and stitching, a breeze on mostly stationary microscopic images. W.S. 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If only symbolic for Tony Wills's point. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Absurd size for FP. W.S. 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Plagiomnium_affine_laminazellen.jpeg&oldid=56217823"