Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bismuth crystal

Bismuth crystal

Revision

Reason: cool pct of a chemical element; featured on commons
Articles this image appears in: Bismuth
Creator: Alchemist-hp

Support as nominator --Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just love all theses mineral pictures, which have both beautiful colors and high EV with all the geometrical form theses minerals assume. Keep them coming ! Ksempac (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Ksempac, this one is really awesome! - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Decent photo of a really amazing specimen. Some of the focus stacking looks a little odd but for this sort of subject it's definitely excusable. Have you considered building a light tent for these shots? You'd lose all that "dirty" shading. --mikaul^talk 02:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support This is a no-brainer! Gladly support.--Garretttaggs (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice colours, but slightly artifacted. MER-C 09:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - visually appealing and would definitely add a lot of encyclopedic value. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support What wild stuff! Very sharp, I don't see the artifacts MER-C refers to. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose. Not to be a killjoy, but the size indicator doesn't "do it" for me. I'd support a version without it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For an encyclopedia surely the additional information > aesthetics? Noodle snacks (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Simply throwing in more "information" to the photo does not perforce make it "better" from a FP standpoint. Why not add in a representation of the rhombohedral crystal structure? Why not add in the Bismuth square from the periodic table? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's an example of the image without the scale bar... I also rotated and cropped to fix what looked (to me) like a tilt in the original. I'm not suggesting that we use my modification (for one, it's been re-JPEGed twice now), but this is a crude attempt at showing what I thought would make it "better" in my eye. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note : Use of scales has already been discussed in the talk page. A majority of people approved their use since it add great EV (without a scale, you can't guess the size of an insect or a mineral you never saw before). I admit that in some cases it's hard to put a scale without damaging the picture, but that's not the case here. In this nomination, the scale is not distractive, and can be easily be cut/cloned out if someone needs to do it (for aesthetic or printing purpose). Therefore it should stay. I oppose any alt that removes the scale. Ksempac (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I admit it's not as distracting as on the current nom for that fly, but I still don't have to like it. ;) That said, does anyone else see the "tilt" I'm talking about? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply include its dimensions in the tagline instead of using the visual field as a stage for "relationship" info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.163.249 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Promoted File:Bi-crystal.jpg Clear consensus for scale. --wadester 16 05:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]