Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.jpg

Pharyngeal jaw in moray eel

Reason: Brilliant illustration, high res, might need minor editing (watermark remove?).
Articles this image appears in: Jaw, Moray eel, Pharyngeal jaws
Creator: Zina Deretsky, US National Science Foundation (after Rita Mehta, UC Davis)

Support as nominator --Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no real artifacting but this should compress better as PNG / SVG. Also, I think we should remove the NSF seal and the symbol on the bottom left. Also, could probably remove the border. gren グレン 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - Might want to bring this over to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and ask for these to be done. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the border and watermarks. I have requested conversion at the graphics lab for png or svg. Zoo Fari 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PNG conversion will only give a smaller file if you flatten the gradients, and I'm not sure that that would make a better picture. The same comment goes @SVG conversion. I predict it will look a lot less appealing, and at 230kb, this is already a slim JPG file considering its dimensions. You can try PNG conversion for yourselves to see if you can come up with a smaller file without loss in quality. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, converting won't help in the direct sense... it's remaking as a PNG / SVG. Mostly so it will scale well, I thought that was the main reason we only really promote diagrams in PNG or SVG. gren グレン 01:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Version Thanks to Pbroke13 for rewriting it as SVG. What do you think? Adjustments can be made by the way. Zoo Fari 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ ~~In my opinion a fun picture of the day, however, the illustration is poorly colored, making it seem as if the muscles are the primary feature of the second part of the illustration. Needs work.~~ Strong oppose A featured picture should feature what it is featuring, and this image does not, and this whole board now seems to be a private club with only input from the regulars welcome or dealt with. This image will not be seen on the main page by the experts here alone, it will be seen by a general audience, and this image gives misinformation by labeling what is primary in a manner that recedes it into the background, according to the caption, at least. --KP Botany (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, what do you mean by "private"? This is a very open discussion; anyone is allowed to put in their input. And, all input is used to make a decision, so I'd have to say that this is not private by any means. Secondly, just because the background is blue and the font is a different shade of blue does not mean it doesn't feature what is trying to be described. Besides, do you have a better color scheme in mind? I feel that if you are opposing, you should bring in a suggestion to fix the problem described, especially if it is a strong oppose. --Pbroks13^talk? 00:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted this five and half days ago, the first time. You ignored my comment, and a color change (my suggestion) would have helped me to make a decision. I oppose because the feature of interest is lost in the color scheme. I strongly oppose because of this. If a featured picture does not feature what it is supposed to feature it loses encyclopedic value. --KP Botany (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if you feel that I ignored your comment, but as you can see, my first time commenting on this page was today (yesterday UTC). ZooFari gave me requests, I just did them. But now, I've decided to get involved in the discussion. What I was trying to ask you is what color scheme would you suggest? I'm no color expert, so I look to you guys for specific suggestions to make the image better, not just a general "color needs to be better." --Pbroks13^talk? 01:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just lighten the red a bit for the muscles, which are very important for pharyngeal jaws, and make the bones themselves darker, doing the same for the accompanying text. That should do it. --KP Botany (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Hows that? I removed the other labels per Stevage's request. Does black look good? I also fixed the colors. What do you think? --Pbroks13^talk? 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FP criterion 7: "Has a good caption". Also, does "Moray eels" really need to be in the picture? It seems superfluous since the file name, the picture description, and the caption in the article list the species. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better within the image, as people who may want to use images on Wiki will already have a title and captions. Zoo Fari 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How hard is it to change three pages? Removing it will allow you to crop out the negative space, meaning the thumbnail will contain more pixels of the actual jaw. I'm not a fan of the the blue fading to white background, either. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right. I have asked the SVG uploader to do the removal and crop, and the new version is now update to the right. Zoo Fari 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support SVG Also, since the new image was only put up on the 19th, I'm going to pop this up the page a bit, as it was effectively suspended Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would like to see more consistency between the two states, eg label "muscles" on both. --Fir0002 12:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Pbroks13^talk? 19:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also like to see better labelling. IMHO the best would be to *only* label the pharyngeal jaw, and to use an arrow or line to point it out precisely. The "oral jaw" and muscles (in particular) are pretty self-explanatory. The text as it is sort of floats around and doesn't really show what it's labelling - particularly the PJ label in between the two eels could be labelling anything. Consider this a support if that's done. Stevage 10:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good points, the labeling is just not useful. However, the muscles and oral jaw should all be labeled, as the pharyngeal jaw does not work without them, yet, somehow it is not what is emphasized in the illustration. I think if the coloration is improved and the labeling changed the image will be improved as well, or its value as an encyclopedic illustration. --KP Botany (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Done How does the black text look? And do the lines work for you? --Pbroks13^talk? 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. If I was quibbling, I'd avoid the lines actually crossing the jaws themselves, and I'd use the text "pharyngeal jaws" rather than "jaw", but not important. If KP Botany really wants the muscles labelled, I'd suggest using a more specific term than "muscles" (ie, what muscles are they?), and a smaller font than that used for the jaws. Stevage 02:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller font would be good. I don't quite like the first labeling of the pharyngeal jaws location. You know, now that you bring it up, they're technically pharyngeal jaw bones and pharyngeal jaw muscles. I don't understand how that would enhance an otherwise good illustration for the laymen. Maybe you could elaborate? --KP Botany (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I looked it up, just at onelook.com, and it says in the medical dictionaries that it is just the bones, so I suppose just the bones is okay. It seems less encyclopedic when the muscles are so involved. Still don't understand why it has to be all the muscles for a general pictures for the layman. It should say Moray Eel, though, because their pharyngeal jaws are very unique. If it's labeled just "pharyngeal jaw" it should be a typical one, not a unique one. I like the coloration as redone as I think it puts emphasis and is cleaner and clearer than the prior. Support when Moray Eel added back to illustration. What's the caption, though? --KP Botany (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "Moray Eel" is now labeled. There's a caption for it (what do you think?). Also, the lines aren't over the jaws. Now, I'm a bit confused. Are the bones and muscles to be labeled? If they are, smaller text would be good; however, should there be lines pointing like the pharyngeal jaws are? --Pbroks13^talk? 18:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope noone minds, but it's only in the last couple days that things calmed down here, so I've moved it up the page to make sure that consensus is achieved, without the need to run this again later. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG per the long discussion above me. Zoo Fari 04:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG From my understanding, this meets FP criteria. Nice work. §hep ^Talk 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support SVG Meets FP criteria. --Pbroks13^talk? 19:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support SVG High EV, better as an SVG. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. --KP Botany (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Pharyngeal jaws of moray eels.svg MER-C 07:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]