Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Polychaeta anatomy en.svg

Image:Polychaeta anatomy en.svg, featured

'3D' vector rendering of the anatomy of a segment of a polychaete

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lycaon -- Lycaon 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support A complex illustration is quite a bit more work than a simple click on a camera :), particularly when its done well and with meticulousness --Makro Freak 21:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Question Are there any standards or guidelines for evaluating illustrations? I mean it looks complex, but lacks the "wow factor", but I don't know how an illustration even has a "wow factor". It's not really a picture either, it's an illustration. I would feel better about voting on an illustration if I had some idea how I should even go about evaluating it. -- Ram-Man 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 Info Looking at those that are FP: Highly detailed or photo realistic or animated, visually appealing, use colour well. Often of something familiar but showing detail not illustratable by a photograph. But there are about 20% that I think should be just QI, so what do I know? ;-) --Tony Wills 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Support --Karelj 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Oppose --WarX 09:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Should use numbered labels!

•  Comment Numbered labels are hard to read and reduce de value of the illustration, translated versions exist for/from all interested parties. Lycaon 10:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • so please read those labels on image in the nomination! --WarX 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• The nominated image is not this thumbnail! I trust you evaluate all images at full size!! ;-) --Tony Wills

• So I hope you put full resolution image in Wikipedia, so everyone can read it ...--WarX 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

•  Neutral Again a quality image. I expect that the general public will, like me, be ignorant of what it is of (the image page description didn't help, but the categories it belonged to did), and hence will be puzzled but not wow'ed. --Tony Wills 09:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Support Have to support my own. The work invested into this was substantial: both the research into the correctness of the image, and the drawing in pseudo 3D with all the different layers. Lycaon 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
•  Neutral - The picture is not geometrically clear for me. I don't understand the smaller cut "window" and its relation with the septum between segments and the orange structure at right (parapod?). Also, colours could be better; for example, the interior of the intestinal lumen should be darker. - Alvesgaspar 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree on both points. I think there should be edges where the section plane surfaces intersect. --Tony Wills 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

•  Support Ii is a pity that we have no guidlines for illustrations. So i have to compare with other FP illustrations. This one is informative, it has no flaws, its clearly arranged and its superior to some allready featured illustrations. So for me it is a FP --Simonizer 10:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)