Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Photo 51
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2025 at 18:25:04 (UTC)
- Reason
- One of the most famous and important images in science. Because of that, I think it is an exception when it comes to quality
- Articles in which this image appears
- Photo 51, DNA
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Biology
- Creator
- Raymond Gosling
- Support as nominator – Wcamp9 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I need to talk this one through: On the one hand, this was originally a photographic plate, so the limit of detail is somewhere a little smaller than the film grain size (since the film grains don't form a grid, so the conversion to grid is going to eat detail if it's too close to film grain size).
- It's not sharp, but I'm not sure if that's JPEG artefacting, resolution, or just that X-ray diffraction isn't a photograph of a straight line.
- It's relatively small dimensions (858 × 858) which might be reasonable if this is a tiny spot on a photographic plate, or might be horrible. I don't know. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 21:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- This could be a case where (FP criterion 5) "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value"? As in this nom? Bammesk (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's also the case we should nominate the best copy possible. There are numerous other copies of Photo 51 online, some much bigger, so we need to judge which is best. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 04:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- This could be a case where (FP criterion 5) "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value"? As in this nom? Bammesk (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't get it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: I'm curious what you don't get. There's an entire page dedicated to this photo that describes its importance. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Because a photo in an article is supposed to add value on its own. This doesn't. It only makes any sense after you read about it. For me, that is the wrong way round. Also, it adds little value to DNA article and isn't included in double helix article, Why? I Ask. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: That is an incredibly stupid reason. If something is described as the most important photo by many medical journals, newspapers, and books, it certainly has great encyclopedic value. (I did a basic search and found no less than forty sources calling it such.) Hell, it even has a play about it. And isn't one of the criteria literally
it illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more
? Why? I Ask (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: That is an incredibly stupid reason. If something is described as the most important photo by many medical journals, newspapers, and books, it certainly has great encyclopedic value. (I did a basic search and found no less than forty sources calling it such.) Hell, it even has a play about it. And isn't one of the criteria literally
- There is no reason to be rude Why? I Ask. I may be old but I am not stupid. And even if I was, you shouldn't insult me. I read Watson's The Double Helix when it was published in 1968. The FP criteria you quote is spot on and I know it well. The image does not illustrate the subject in a compelling way. It does not make the viewer want to know more. QED. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not say you were stupid. You're clearly a very talented photographer based on your page. I said it was a stupid reason, and I stand by that. It meets all the criteria laid out. The fact that it is aesthetically dull is explicitly not a reason to oppose:
A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all.
As I have said, it is highly historical. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not say you were stupid. You're clearly a very talented photographer based on your page. I said it was a stupid reason, and I stand by that. It meets all the criteria laid out. The fact that it is aesthetically dull is explicitly not a reason to oppose:
- There is no reason to be rude Why? I Ask. I may be old but I am not stupid. And even if I was, you shouldn't insult me. I read Watson's The Double Helix when it was published in 1968. The FP criteria you quote is spot on and I know it well. The image does not illustrate the subject in a compelling way. It does not make the viewer want to know more. QED. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Visual information not readily intelligible to general readers/viewers. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp and Sca: To explain this: this is a method of analyzing protein shapes that was vitally important to working out the structure of DNA; it's included in any decent history of science book covering the subject. Interpretation is a very specialised skill, though there are resources that will explain it to you.
- This was Rosalind Franklin's specialty, Gosling was part of her team. I don't know why this doesn't appear in either of their articles. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per above. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- The nom version is not a good copy, it is a blurred version of the original Here and Here. The second link says there is a 1500 x 1644 pixel available. I would support if a non-blurred version of the original is nominated. I disagree with the EV comments/votes above. Bammesk (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would also support a better-quality copy. I've seen this photo elsewhere; I believe it's at least moderately famous. Moonreach (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bammesk; @Adam Cuerden; @Moonreach: I have uploaded a higher quality one from the King's College London archives. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would also support a better-quality copy. I've seen this photo elsewhere; I believe it's at least moderately famous. Moonreach (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:Why? I Ask, I am leaning to support. Is there a source link for the latest upload? Could you put the link on the image page please. If not, then perhaps a home-page link to King's College Archives or something like that (pointing to where the image came from). Bammesk (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bammesk: Sure thing! Just did! Why? I Ask (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support – high resolution, and compared to other copies seems to be essentially 180 degrees rotated, which is fine. Bammesk (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Why? I Ask, I am leaning to support. Is there a source link for the latest upload? Could you put the link on the image page please. If not, then perhaps a home-page link to King's College Archives or something like that (pointing to where the image came from). Bammesk (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: The above votes "I don't get it" and "not readily intelligible to viewers" do not hold any merit. This is described by the BBC as a candidate for the most important photo ever. I have uploaded a higher-quality edition from the King's College London Archives as well. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Thanks for finding a better copy. Moonreach (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The new upload was introduced very late. If this nom doesn't pass I suggest re-nominating the image later. Bammesk (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 19:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)