Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Leaf Morphology Chart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Leaf Morphology Chart

Chart illustrating 61 morphological terms describing leaf shape, margins and venation.

While Diliff's mega-panoramas are a hard act to follow, I thought I would throw the metaphorical hat into the ring with this illustration. I created it with the desire to make a richly encyclopedic image/poster with lots of information about leaf morphology. There is a lot of jargon in botany (and science generally) and I think images that visually define that jargon are useful. The image illustrates the leaf article, in the terminology section. Now, I know there is an on-going debate about illustrations as FPs, particularly how they scale down as thumbnails. While I am biased, I do think the thumb of this image is attractive in a symbolic/technical way (kind of the way a optometrist's chart or wanted poster could be seen to have aesthetic appeal). In either case, I am interested in your comments. On a technical note, I know you all prefer the SVG format to PNG, but I was unable to successfully save the image out of Illustrator in PNG. The fonts were screwed up (see this version particularly in the margin section). If you have a tip on that please pass it on.

• Nominate and support. - Debivort 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Highly informative and aesthetically pleasing. So it's got scaling problems - big deal (not!). Surely, someone can put a link to the high-res version in the image caption for someone who wants to study it in more detail? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support (added: titleless version). This looks better than most diagrams do in thumbnail size - the captions are readable, thus giving the viewer the incentive to explore further. And the graphic design is just excellent - if you ask me (and methinks that's what you're doing ;-) there's just one thing I'd change, and that is the slightly garish green in the "shape" and "venation" sections, the green in "margin" is more pleasing. --Janke | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Your diagrams are great. We need more annotators here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great content and presentation. I'd love to have it in SVG and clickable sometime. --Dschwen 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good remark by Renata3. I second that. titleless looks better. --Dschwen 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support - The informational content, the logical design, the uniform layout... yeah. I am completely wowed. :o) --Deglr6328 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - aesthetically pleasing and fully informative. One minor point: I can hardly read the small print. Therefore, I wouldn't mind a larger clickable image. JoJan 17:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The full size is ~2200x2300. Are you sure you are looking at that, rather than the image page? It might also be autoscaling in your browser. Debivort 17:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Scaling issues aside, I am very pleased with the direction that recent Featured Picture candidates have been going in. This image is very informative, and very aesthetically pleasing. The only problem I see with recent images is that as they increase in resolution, it seems that users have to choose between small thumbnails/previews, and the gigantic full size. There really should be some in-between choice... ~MDD4696 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, that is a particularly great diagram. It would be really nice if it were SVG, but this version is certainly high-res enough to work. --jackohare 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - just WOW!! - Adrian Pingstone 19:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very nice. I can see it up as a poster in a classroom. JQF 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Immediately clear and highly informative. --BillC 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Prefer the one without the title BillC 17:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Understandable, recognizeable, great illustration -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: visually attractive and very informative. Raven4x4x 23:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-7 04:14
• Support alot of great effot. Good job. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious support except for one thing. Could you cut off the title (where it says leaf morphology)? Please, it really disturbs me. That sort of title is excellent for stand-alone posters, but not for images in WP where they are properly captioned and goes along with bunch of text. Renata3 05:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yay! Changing bolding and striking my comments. Thank you! Renata3 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very understandable even for non-biologists and highly informative. enochlau (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support one without title. enochlau (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support without title - typography of the title is ugly. --Wikimol 21:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• ( + ) Support Without title. Stylish --Fir0002 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support DaGizza^{Chat (c)} 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm embarrassed to point out a fault with this wonderful work, but the "shape" box is alphabetized in columns, while the "margin" and "venation" boxes are alphabetized in rows. - Bantman 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It's very informative, but visually not very interesting, IMHO. Eyesclosed 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  User's 13th edit. Other edits are FPC also.

• References would be nice. Broken S 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? Even though these are definitional rather than statements of fact or interpretation? Almost all can be found in a normal online dictionary. Debivort 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I prefer references for all non-trivial facts. I don't know enough to say if this diagram needs refs. It's good otherwise, though. Can you find another similar diagram in a book and ref it there? The FP criterion does ask for refs (in the article or in the picture description page). Broken S 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't think of an obvious way to do this. I probably used 15 different sources for it, with most heavy reliance on dictionaries. But I would note that it is not typical in a scientific article, for example, to cite definitions, unless they are idiosynchratic. If somone else feels strongly about that I could go track down references, but it would be pretty arbitrary which were chosen. Debivort 04:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very useful. bogdan 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Leaf morphology no title.png Raven4x4x 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)