Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Drosophilidae compound eye .jpg
- Reason
- Great electron micrograph, considerable resolution, rare encyclopaedic value.
- Articles this image appears in
- Drosophilidae
- Creator
- Louisa Howard, Dartmouth College (public domain)
- Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Could you possibly clean up the image, remove the odd scratch and blip there is. Could you also fix the distortion that runs horizontally towards the top of the picture and also clean the faint horizontal line at the bottom of the picture and se if you can sharpen the picture up. Sorry if that was a long list but I really wanna support this image because it really caught my eye when i was on the page and i think this could be a really good FP but just needs those points i brought up fixed. Seddσn talk Editor Review 12:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. It will take a while, and I won't be able to do everything today. In fact, I may not be able to do everything during the course of this nomination due to my work schedule. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you wish i could attempt it myself. Seddσn talk Editor Review 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll upload what I've done so far. Maybe it will be a useful starting point for you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you wish i could attempt it myself. Seddσn talk Editor Review 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. It will take a while, and I won't be able to do everything today. In fact, I may not be able to do everything during the course of this nomination due to my work schedule. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. While the scale indicator is useful, it is quite hard to see in a small thumbnail. Could it possibly be made larger? NauticaShades 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've passed it on to Seddon for editing. If he doesn't have time for it, I can do it at some point, but it may be a few days. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Support- Very encyclopedic, good but not great quality. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose The SEM is known for its depth of field, this image was shot without taking advantage of the capabilities of the instrument. This is clearly an amateur electron micrograph and there is not, in any way, anything about it that should be featured on Wikipedia or anywhere else. It's technical quality is zero, due to charging artifacts, no focus, no depth of field, it is not even in the same ballpark as the excellent krill eye micrograph, much less "among Wikipedia's best work," and it should be replaced as soon as possible in the Drosophilidae article. Not even the region that's "in focus" is in focus. Clearly the work of an amateur who does not know the instrument and its capabilities and has minimalized all the potential of the SEM to produce one second rate micrograph that should not even have been published, much less promoted to FP on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's not all that informative (the same feature repeated over and over, no color, without putting into wider context as macros do and without going down to the level of sub-cellular detail that some other electron microscopy images do). Plus, there is the horizontal blip where it looks like the sample got bumped during the scan.--ragesoss (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would support this wider scan instead: [1]. Despite lower magnification, it has hardly any less detail, with a lot more context. And because the composition isn't based on symmetry and uniformity, the flaws (posterized background, blown highlights) don't detract as much as from the nominated image. There are a number of probably FP-worthy shots on the Dartmouth site (all public domain), but I don't think this is one.--ragesoss (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- The wider scan is worse, simply one of the worst micrographs I've ever seen. It looks like the text micrographs we're given to see how many things wrong with it we can find, and then define how to correct it. --Blechnic (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would support this wider scan instead: [1]. Despite lower magnification, it has hardly any less detail, with a lot more context. And because the composition isn't based on symmetry and uniformity, the flaws (posterized background, blown highlights) don't detract as much as from the nominated image. There are a number of probably FP-worthy shots on the Dartmouth site (all public domain), but I don't think this is one.--ragesoss (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted MER-C 03:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
