Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CT of brain of Mikael Häggström.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Computed tomography of human brain

Computed tomography of human brain, from base of the skull to top. Taken with intravenous contrast medium.
Computed tomography of human brain, from base of the skull to top. Taken with intravenous contrast medium.
Reason
encylopedic images clearly detailing all the layers of the human brain
Articles this image appears in
Human brain, Computed tomography
Creator
Mikael Häggström
  • Strong Oppose; it does not match up to the regulation size of 1000 pixels as stated in the criteria for a featured picture. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Individual images used to create this are 512 x 512 pixels - so why is the composite so minuscule? And why have the original jpgs been used to make a png? This may stand a chance if it was redone to a decent size. --jjron (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have notified the creator and asked if a larger version is available (suggestion: min. 2000 px wide). If there is, I'll gladly support - very high enc in this candidate! Furthermore, I'd suggest dropping 4 intermediate images, to get a regular array of 30 images. --Janke | Talk 08:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE Creator has uploaded a new, large (3639 px wide) version. If someone (or I, if no-one else in a day or two) removes the "all rights released" text, I'll support. --Janke | Talk 12:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment:
Already a FP, but created with MRI instead of CT
Already a FP, but created with MRI instead of CT
Kind of redundant of featured animation. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought we already had an FP animated version of this... — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-31 14:14Z
    • Well, the animated gif is nice, but you don't have time to study the individual frames. Aso, it's only 213x231 px, while the current candidate's images are a lot larger, and show more detail (check the eyes in the three frames top right). So' I'd say the enc is much higher for the new candidate... --Janke | Talk 14:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as redundant with existing FP. DurovaCharge! 23:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The FP animation is created from MRI frames, which is a different technique than CT. Apart from that, I do have data to create a slightly higher quality MRI animation than the currently featured anim... --Dschwen 16:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Support new version. DurovaCharge! 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Animation of a stack of vertical MRI sections of a normal adult human brain
Animation of a stack of vertical MRI sections of a normal adult human brain
  • Comment. The old version was promoted in Sept 2004 when standards were considerably lower. I'm almost inclined to put the existing version up for delist - it's very small and poor quality. Quality here is superior and it's more usable, though I wish the uploader would remove those 'copyright free' notes from all images, composite and individual, as that really deters me from supporting. --jjron (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I also think the current candidate is better than the old one. Second what Jjron suggested. Clegs (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MRT!=CT. Why is this animation even mentioned in this nomination? --Dschwen 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It was the opposers that brought it up, so why question us? --jjron (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, I misunderstood the reference to the old candidate. --Dschwen 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've uplodaded a new version, without the 'copyright free' notes, both in the compound and in the individual ones. Regarding the size, I've also added links to a larger and a smaller one, if any other size fits better. So, if it's better than the existing FP, then I see no other reason against at present. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose the image size of each individual brain is far too small. Posters with small pixel size shouldn't be FPs, in my opinion . Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My vote has been changed to Oppose new version as per Rudy's comment. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Note re. the two opposes above. A larger version has been uploaded, see below. --Janke | Talk 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support new large version without copyright free notes (especially as it's not duplicating an existing image). And for opposers, why is it OK to stick a bunch of small images together into an animated gif or some other movie and say size doesn't matter, but not OK to put them into a sequenced composite image like this? --jjron (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LARGE Computed tomography of human brain

  • Comment. So, the problem seems to be that each individual image in the composite still is too small. However, what about this large version of the image:
Computed tomography of human brain, from base of the skull to top. Taken with intravenous contrast medium.
Computed tomography of human brain, from base of the skull to top. Taken with intravenous contrast medium.
Reason
LARGE encylopedic images clearly detailing all the layers of the human brain
Articles this image appears in
Human brain, Computed tomography
Creator
Mikael Häggström
  • Support large version. --Janke | Talk 08:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, this is much better. Thanks for taking the trouble, and yes, I Support. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. DurovaCharge! 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think my intentions to support are clear. --jjron (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellant and interesting pictures. SpencerT♦C 02:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png MER-C 04:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)