Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thin section scan crossed polarizers Siilinjärvi R636-105.90.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2019 at 09:20:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks and minerals
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Support —kallerna (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Due to scale on image. I forget where the guidelines are, but I'm pretty sure we are encouraged to avoid text on such images and to use the description to state how wide or tall the whole image is. Then if anyone wants to overlay a scale, they can and do it with whichever text style is consistent with their other images. Currently the scale limits the reuse. It is fairly pretty, but when I look through Category:Rocks in thin section I see quite a lot of pretty images. Even from this one sample, this one is more colourful. So I'm not sure what to judge here to say it is among our finest. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment Template:NoCoins suggests using a ruler like this. Feel free to nominate others from the category, most of those are photomicrographs, this one is taken with a different method. The image you linked is not from the same sample nor the same thin section. IMO both could be FPs. —kallerna (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- {{NoCoins}} isn't policy, just someone's opinion. A ruler or scale is more appropriate where the image has a background that the ruler can be positioned nearby the subject. Here the scale overlays the subject in a way that can't be removed. See File:Aluminium bar surface etched.jpg for example of FP with no scale and with measurement in the description. There aren't any other FPs where the scale is intrusive on the subject. -- Colin (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Info Some featured images with similar scales (although true, not over the actual content): File:Hafnium pellets with a thin oxide layer.jpg, File:Vanadium etched.jpg, File:Osmium crystals.jpg, File:Gold-crystals.jpg, File:Bi-crystal.jpg, File:Cu-Scheibe.JPG. Anyways, I added an alternative version without the scale. —kallerna (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- That is the vital point -- we ensure any scale is in the body text or easily removed or cropped out. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I find this a better composition and at least equally interesting combination of textures as the other one (I like the areas with parallel lines in different directions), but I agree that the other one could also be an FP. We could have a few of them. I recall we've previously featured micrographs with scales on the image. The scales are useful, though I could imagine how it could limit reuse. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment You could simply include a version without the scale in the file history (upload it and upload the one with the scale again) or make a second version without it. That way people can choose if they want the scale or if they want to use another unit for measuring. --Cart (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The scale spoils it -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others and it's hard to focus your eyes on it Seven Pandas (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support scales create a deeper educational value. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]
- Info I've uploaded a alternative file without the scale. —kallerna (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support - If you saw this as an abstract painting in an art show, would you be happy with it? I would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly my reflection, before I read your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Might be inspiring for modern artist painters -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ok for me - with or without ruler--Isiwal (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose scales create a deeper educational value. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others -- Karelj (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment No scale in this one. —kallerna (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Can I remind those voting against this one without the scale overlay that Commons is an educational media repository, not a publisher. As a repository, our highest value is to ensure the image can be used in the most ways. A book or website containing images of such rocks will want to present them in a consistent fashion with the scale either in the caption area or overlayed using the same font, size and colour text for all images. As soon as we put our own scale obscuring the image, we limit use, and limit language. The book might not even consider scale important to the usage. This image could also be used as a book cover for a book on rocks or indeed anything, but can't if there's a big ----1mm---- scale on top. However, Kallerna, you need to then describe the image dimensions in the body text, which should be a simple task of multiplication. -- Colin (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Added. —kallerna (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- No you can't, I do not follow the rules in your head. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason why we can't have the one with the scale for educational purposes and this one to be an FP. Certainly it does not lose its educational value entirely without the scale. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support The version without the scale only, as it allows greater flexibility of use. Cmao20 (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose no reason for me to FP nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and minerals
The chosen alternative is: File:Thin section scan crossed polarizers Siilinjärvi R636-105.90 edit.jpg
