Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human skeleton back.svg

Image:Human skeleton back.svg, featured

•  Info created ,uploaded and nominated by LadyofHats --LadyofHats 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Beyond silence 16:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Nice work. JaGa 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
•  Support -- Benh 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --LucaG 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Digon3 ^talk 23:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Luc Viatour 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --Leafnode 06:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --WarX 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) to small fonts, should be at least 150% of used size
  • done-LadyofHats 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks ;) --WarX 16:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Man you're good! Doo-dle-doo 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Question and  Comment Have any reviewers trained in the human anatomy double-checked the terms used in the figure? I am asking because I showed this figure to a medical doctor I know and trust to get an opinion, and the reaction was confusion and comments about inconsistent or truncated notation. Some terms are in latin, like Radius whereas others are in English, like Ribs. Another comment I got is that, e.g., Coccyx is a truncated name (I did not get what the full name is). Apparently such mixed terms and truncated names are not normally what is presented in textbooks or encyclopedias. I just checked my own Danish encyclopedia for figures of the skeleton and all the terms were (consistently) in Danish. I guess there must be English terms for all constituent bones as well? Therefore, would it not be more consistent to present either only English terms or only Latin terms? Perhaps one version for each language? -- Slaunger 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• the complete answer is in the front view discusion.-LadyofHats 21:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • and so is my reply. -- Slaunger 22:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support yeah, why not?! ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Well done encyclopedic illustration. --Egg 11:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Dezidor 13:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please state a reason for opposing in courtesy of the nominator. -- Slaunger 13:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong  Support -- I'm a physician and this is as good an illustration as I have seen in any of my text books. The mixture of Latin and English names is a fairly well accepted norm in english speaking medical schools, so it is not a bother. However, it does need to be pointed out in the accompanying text what the red and the blue lines represent. Just a couple of minor nitpicks

* Why are the costal cartilages the only cartilages labeled? It seems a little inconsistent if other cartilages that are prominently seen - like the acetabular cartilage for eg., are not labeled. However, naming all of them will make the picture too busy.

* Labels for groups of vertebrae span the whole length of the corresponding group. However, for the ribs, the label spans only 3 of them. I know it is intuitive that the other ribs are also, well, ribs... but it is still a nitpick.

All in all, an exceptional illustration. Hats off, Lady! Shushruth 16:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Now that it seems like a proficient person has checked the terms and commented in favor of the mixed notation. -- Slaunger 19:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
•  Info- i made the chages you requested-LadyofHats 10:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
•  Support - Good work - Alvesgaspar 07:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 09:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)