Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg

Image:plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg, not featured

Info created by Fabelfroh - uploaded by Fabelfroh - nominated by Fabelfroh
Support beautiful and clear photo of cells of a moss. even the chloroplasts are visible. Fabelfroh 07:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too small for a simple microphotograph. Lycaon 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've had a lengthy discussion about image sizes in QI. In this case composition, subject and rareness (a photo of lamina cells of the moss Plagiomnium affine is pretty unique on the internet) outweighs image size. Fabelfroh 09:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is FP, there are size requirement, whether you like it or not. For encyclopaedic value, try en:FPC: I'd support for biological value over there (also on de:FPC) but surely not on commons. Lycaon 15:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've converted Lycaon's FPX into an oppose vote. I'm prepared to be persuaded that we should expect microscopic photography to deliver more pixels that this picture does, but I don't see it as automatically given. The picture is well composed, pretty, well labeled and all the things we could want. More pixels would be nice, but even as is, it's a great image. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support not so wow to me, but probably nicely taken. Also, I don't think bigger size would help, elements being repetitive here, they would just repeat a bit more :) Benh 20:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 03:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
Oppose Would support a nomination on Wikipedia though. --startaq 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 800x600 is far too small for FP, sorry. The fact that it's a photomicrograph can't excuse the very low resolution: it simply shows that the equipment used was not up to the job of providing an image of the required quality. --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both illustrative and beautiful.For the resolution, I agree with Benh. Vassil 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Seeder 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good, size is a problem --Richard Bartz 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've done pictures using a microscope myself... it's not a big problem to do them in a proper size.... --Jeses 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice picture, I couldn't find a better pic in the category. Although, if Jeses will be able to provide better version, I'd probably support delisting. --che 12:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i can't. The pictures i've taken had a different subject and are copyrighted, as part of a university project. --Jeses 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Lerdsuwa 16:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. -- Ram-Man 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is unreasonable to fail a FPC on size grounds alone, evaluate the image, does it have 'wow' is it a good image? The size guideline is a hint to nominators and evaluators, it is not a 'rule' (I say for the 1000th time :-). It may be technically possible to have much higher resolution micrographs, but where are our best micrographs, why aren't they in FP? Perhaps this nomination will encourage more. --Tony Wills 07:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality, encyclopedic value alone is not enough -- Gorgo 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Malene Thyssen 18:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 14:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]