Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Periodic table

Periodic table

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 10:40:15 (UTC)

Original – Periodic table of the elements

Reason: It is a clear and well-coloured representation of the famous periodic table. If passed, I would also like to fast-track it to POTD this March, to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the periodic table.
Articles in which this image appears: Periodic table, Chemical element, Chemistry + 13 others
FP category for this image: Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Others
Creator: the creator of the image, where possible using the format Offnfopt

Support as nominator – — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Let's say I didn't know anything about the periodic table. What do the colors mean? What do the numbers mean? Something like File:Tableau périodique des éléments.svg, but in English, would be better. I agree we should do something, but this isn't it. Possible alternatives could be images of Dmitri Mendeleev or something like File:Dmitry Mendeleyev Osnovy Khimii 1869-1871 first periodic table.jpg. MER-C 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well fair enough, but the way I was seeing it was that this image exists to illustrate the periodic table article. The French one is nice, but has too much detail to be usable as the main image. The advantage of the one we're using here is that it is legible at the resolutions typically found on a Wikipedia page. So although it lacks the full detail (which can be seen a little further down the article) it is actually usable for anyone who does have a vague idea of what the table is, and I think provides a good basic illustration. The scan of the first periodic table is a good idea, but the version you've linked seems kind of blurry to me. So unless there's no other detail available anywhere I'm not sure that one would pass muster? — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point about being at display resolution, however my objection about the lack of explanation of the colors still stands. This is certainly a topic that admits at least one FP, but to the best of my knowledge Commons doesn't have an FP-worthy image at the moment. MER-C 16:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stretching the remit a bit further, we have this photo of Niels Bohr, who put forward the first explanation of the structure of the periodic table. It needs restoration, though. MER-C 16:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:MER-C, I will give the restoration a go. Btw that's a big stretch, he doesn't look like an element, but I am sure he is made of them :-) Bammesk (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the POTD blurb will talk about the Bohr model, atomic structure and how it explains the periodic table. I had a thorough look for better alternatives, but the best images in the US National Archive (of Glenn Seaborg) were copyrighted. I also looked for images of Yuri Oganessian to no avail. There is hopefully a relevant image in an institution somewhere that hasn't been scanned yet, but we'll see. MER-C 21:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The tiff image you linked to here is about 3300x4700px after the borders are removed. It has a bit more detail, better lighting and shows more of his torso than the infobox image. I will go with it, but if you find a better one let me know. Bammesk (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A modern periodic table is a wealth of detailed information. This one is not. Amongst other information left out:
- Names of the elements
- Average atomic mass
- Key to the colours. Also, are they colourblind-friendly?

And that's not getting into common oxidation states, names of the groups (e.g. chalcogens) and other less common inclusions. Worse, this being the lead for the article makes it the first result for periodic table in google, thus harming other sites. If some of it can't be read at thumbnail, that's fine. Treating that as your goal makes this a terrible standardisation of the periodic table, more style than substance. Imagine being given this in a chemistry class. The French example, frankly, is almost an ideal main image, as it actually includes everything that can be minimally expected instead of actively misleading: The lead image is meant to be a typical example for things like this, not - and I hope you'll forgive this, but I think it's useful for making my reasoning clear - the sort of equivalent that that one sect that worships science in Bester's The Stars My Destination would come up with as they know the style, but not the reasoning behind it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.3% of all FPs} 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Woefully incomplete. Somewhere I saw a PT with clickable elements - popups appeared. An idea for someone interested? (Edit: The larger table on the Wiki PT page is "kinda like" that, you just have to hover the mouse pointer over the element...) --Janke | Talk 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my reasoning for the 2015 nom of a very similar version: "There's of course no questioning the EV of the periodic table, but as an image, the presentation could be much better. The tables in most standard chemistry textbooks are much more visually appealing, IMO. The numbers here are too large relative to the elemental symbols, and the thickness of most lines result in much visual clutter. The legend is also missing from the image description page." Agree that an FP of the periodic table should be one of the full detailed version, not a simplified made-for-thumbnail one. If it's technically better represented using table syntax (as currently done in the article), it probably doesn't need to be an FP. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For one, no indication of what the colours mean. Mattximus (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Promoted --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]