Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blood values

Blood values

Reference ranges for some major blood tests, sorted by mass.

Reason: In twelve octaves, it presents the constituents of your blood.
Articles this image appears in: Reference ranges for blood tests, Reference range
Creator: Mikael Häggström
Fixed from previous version

References added where missing in the main article Reference ranges for blood tests
Clarified that the total protein is total plasma protein, while hemoglobin is inside erythrocytes
By using the .png version of the file instead of the .svg, the resolution is much better

Otherwise, for minor edits and adjustments, we should put them on the Edits needed-list and update when long enough. It will be updated now and then, e.g. as new studies arise. So let's decide now whether it's featured or not.

Support as nominator Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I see an old version here? (No mention of plasma protein.) This one is not in the article. Purging cache doesn't change it here. --Janke | Talk 10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can see it, at the bottom at the far right. Perhaps just wait for a while, or go to its page at the commons. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't archive nomination pages by moving them. Unlike other featured content processes, it doesn't quite work here - it screwed up the monthly archive. Instead, just whack a 2 on the end of the nomination title, e.g. "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blood values 2". MER-C 11:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll try to avoid it in the future. This could be copied to a "Blood values 2", and then reverted to before the copy to "Previous versions", but perhaps it would just mix it up a second time, now that the monthly archive is adapted to it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carcinoembryonic antigen is the only item I can spot without ref. I'm poor at finding medical sources, but PMID 17926198 (which might not be applicable since it is a research paper) says 0.5-1.7ug/l. Otherwise the picture is good Narayanese (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! I've referenced the article and put it on the list for the next image update. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is also in Reference range (making note at the top). I'm still looking through the article itself so wait a bit for my vote. Spencer^T♦^C 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support After a lengthy, systematic ref and number check, it's pretty good. Some less-reliable sources had minor fluctuations with the given data, and I don't see any major reasons this would be inaccurate. However, there is a possibility I missed something, but otherwise, it looks pretty reliable. Spencer^T♦^C 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One comment, though: Can the colour for Bilirubin be changed...with the blue the same (or similar) colour as the lines, its hard to differentiate beginning and ending. Spencer^T♦^C 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any reason this data can't be stored in an SVG? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We tried that, but unfortunately, we didn't find any way of making it appear with the same high resolution. See Previous_versions. Still, this png one is directly derived from the svg. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ support waiting for update to CEA range. I agree svg is not a good idea. But bilirubin could indeed use a more distinct background colour. Narayanese (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, CEA updated, and colour of bilirubin changed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a gap (stitching error?) at transferrin's background. Narayanese (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is the text aliased? It makes the image look like it was created as a raster; vector text exported into a raster format usually looks "typeset", not hinted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find jaggies on it. Where do you see any? The image was created by viewing the svg-file in Firefox, making screen shots and pasting them together (Inkscape's "export as bitmap" gave bad results). Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason for using dL on one of the scales? I know it's a perfectly valid unit, but I've never seen it anywhere else before. If it's a standard unit for blood test results though, that's fine. Time3000 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard for blood values. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Detailed, useful, good quality, reliably sourced. Why not? —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you consider using a sans serif typeface on the individual test labels (e.g., "Free thyroxine") in future versions? Sans serif fonts are usually more legible for applications like this (that is, for 'headlines' instead of 'paragraphs'). It might be particularly helpful to select a sans serif typeface that was optimized for screen use instead of print use (e.g., Arial instead of Helvetica). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. It's on the list for the next update, so when we have gathered some more issues, e.g. more sources for blood values, then it might be worth to upload the images again. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Reference ranges for blood tests - by mass.png MER-C 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your time and comments! It helped a lot in giving high quality and reliability in the picture. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]