Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Human arm bones

Original - *Left: the names of the bones, Right: the main characteristics of the bones
Original - *Left: the names of the bones, Right: the main characteristics of the bones
Reason
one more of the images of the set that was already nominated
Articles this image appears in
Acromion,Arm, Capitulum of the humerus, Clavicle, Coracoid process, Coronoid fossa of the humerus, Greater tubercle, Humerus, Lesser tubercle, Radial fossa, Radial styloid process, Radius (bone), Scapula, Ulna, Ulnar styloid process
Creator
LadyofHats
  • Support as nominator LadyofHats (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support It's very detailed, but a bigger res one wouldn't hurt. diego_pmc (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Can't see anything wrong with it, but it could , perhaps, be a bit more explicit about what the left and right sides are labelling in the image itself. Also, could show the left hand as well as the right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support but Shoemaker has raised a valid point. H92110 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestions (maybe it should have gone to PPR before coming here?).
1. Fix inconsistent capitalisation (again); I'm not pointing them all out.
Done -LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2. As mentioned above the labelling is confusing. It makes it look like the bones in the two arms are different (despite the image description and caption). I'd rather both arms appear the same, maybe with the bones done as callouts to allow labelling of the characteristics. Or label bones in both arms, but with the extra detail on one using a different font/colour. I'm not sure, but perhaps there's a way to make it less confusing?
both arms are the same color now, labelings in diferent color.-LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Colour coding is confusing. Radius and clavicle the same colour, scapula and ulna the same colour. Why? It makes them look 'related'. And why are the same bones on the other side then different colours? This exacerbates the labelling issues.
no more diferent colors now but if you want to know what is confusing labeling then look at my source [1]-LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Why aren't the bones in the hand labelled? Not necessarily individually, but at least to the extent of carpals, metacarpals, phalanges? They're as much, if not more, bones of the forelimb as are the clavicle and scapula.
to cite the article, ... in colloquial speech the term arm often refers to the entire upper limb from shoulder to wrist... adding information who doesnt belong to the actual subject would make things even more confusing- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Then I'd say the article is misleading. If you look at it from a biological/evolutionary perspective (which is surely more meaningful than "colloquial speech") you'd get my point. Refer to Tetrapod#Limbs where these bones are discussed for more of an idea of what I mean. --jjron (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
5. One hand is supinated, the other pronated, altering the layout of the forearm bones and hand/thumb positioning. Possibly this should be labelled or explained in some way.
bones, specially those in the forearm twist when changing position, if this wasnt this way it had been enough to do just one arm to explain everything. when you wish i would add a note in the description page but i do not think it is needed in the image -LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand supination/pronation, but isn't this meant to be assisting people who don't? I just think people will look at it and be confused by the different positions of the bones in the two forearms. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Is it just me, or are the arms exceptionally large and long in relation to the ribcage and spine? It just seems out of proportion.
the arms and the ribcage are coming from the image of the whole skeleton. as a (graphic) rule the tips of the fingers should reach the half of the femur.-LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Maybe it's just that it's been disembodied then, because my gut feel would be that the hands here would reach to about the knees. I was also talking about the thickness, not just the length, the arms just seem very thick compared to the torso. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to carp on this, but I think there are some easy improvements. --jjron (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
i dont mind critics, great part of nominating it here is presicely to improve the image, still i think that sometimes you ask far too much from a diagram, you should remeber the main sorce of information is the article and the image works together with it- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I also ask for sources? This ought to be documented on the image description page. You could even create a heading for sources, just like an article. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • some of my sources:[2], Gray's Anatomy "williams & Warwick", Atlas der anatomie des menschen "Sobotta", Anatomia del cuerpo humano "Yokochi, Rhoen, weinreb", and a lamina printed by "rüdiger-anatomie GmbH"- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think these always ought to be on the image description page. Sourcing, documented on the image description page, should be a normal part of every good technical drawing. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - Correct and good quality illustration, as usual. But I don't believe this is the best of the kind Wikipedia has to offer. As Shoemaker, I see little logic in the way the right and left arms are labelled. To be a FP, I would expect some more detail in the drwaing and the bones of the hand also identified -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak support - After the improvements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - "I would expect some more detail in the drwaing and the bones of the hand also identified." It's called "arm bones."--Svetovid (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • See above... --jjron (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion What if you used brackets at the ends of the lines to explicitly show the left side was pointing to the bones as a whole, whereas the right side was pointing to parts of the bone (or small bones, which should also get small brackets) This would make it a bit more explicit and clear. Also, doesn't the bit of cartiledge connecting the scapula and clavicle have a name? Finally, it's not entirely clear that the head and capitulum of the humerus are part of it, since they're coloured so differently. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion I think it's better to replace the invisible background with a white one. diego_pmc (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • infook i changed it all again in order of changes:
    • maked it a white background
    • added the bones of the hand even when the article says nothing about it and no other internet reference i have seen counts it. actually must of them think the arm is just the space between the shoulder and the elbow.
    • i didnt add braklets becouse i dont know if you notice the radius and the ulna cros each other but i did changed the color of the outline. dont worry this time no color repeats itself.
    • i refuse myself to add more detail just to satisfy a need for complexity. if we are talking about people who can not distinguish between a hand looking foward and one backwards(supinated/pronated) then more detail would only be confusing and distracting. wich is exactly the oposite a diagram wish to do.if someone wants to know more about the subject they can always read the individual bones articles.
    • i added the name of the bones to the specific characteristics on the left. this makes the names extra long but now noone will come to the idea that they are "extra" bones. and if they come to this idea i would recomend them to read the article to come out of the doubth
    • i also doble check that the bones had the right proportion (wich they do)
    • i wrote a note on the description explaning what pronated and supinated means and seting clear no human being has two left hands and therefor the image has one hand looking foward and one looking backwards so that people can see the urna and the radius crosing themselves.
    • any further changes you may wish please write them below this text so i dont have to read all the above once again... thanyou -LadyofHats (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. Are those arms really the average size of a human arm? They seem extremely wide/thick/muscular to me. Maybe it's dead on, but I just wanted someone else to do a reality check for me. Sorry to be picky. Everything else looks great to me. Kaldari (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you read the above comments? Refer to my original Suggestion 6. --jjron (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it is referenced. Diagrams need to be as verifiable as articles. Especially featured ones. gren グレン 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
i will cite myself. on the 9 of march i wrote...**some of my sources:[3], Gray's Anatomy "williams & Warwick", Atlas der anatomie des menschen "Sobotta", Anatomia del cuerpo humano "Yokochi, Rhoen, weinreb", and a lamina printed by "rüdiger-anatomie GmbH"- LadyofHats (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC).. would that be enough for you? -LadyofHats (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, not fully ideal. The best would be "Gray, Henry. Gray's Anatomy Cambridge: University Press, 2005. p. 41" or whatnot... and not an image linked from image shack so that we can know that all images you based it on are themselves authoritative... if you can do that it'd be great but the closest you can get is still decent. gren グレン 09:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Human arm bones diagram.svg MER-C 08:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)