Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mites

Peacock mite
Peacock mite
Rust mite
Rust mite
Flat mite
Flat mite

Three particularly striking images of various mites created with a low-temp scanning electron microscope (LT-SEM; see snow crystal series below). I emailed the group and they gave me access to high-res versions for addition to Wikipedia (images are public domain). Please place them in order of preference for promotion (or we could always promote more than one of them). One or all of them can be placed in at least mite. -  BRIAN0918  22:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support. -  BRIAN0918  22:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #3, #2, neutral #1, oppose #3. At least, I hope I oppose #3, since it's on the basis of the scale: a 120mm bar would make the tick more than a foot long, and I don't even want to think about that. —Korath (Talk) 23:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've sent them an email about it. It's probably supposed to be micrometers. Vote assuming that it will be corrected (and if it isn't, we'll just look at your votes for the others) -- BRIAN0918  23:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was trying to be amusing. I'll support #3 as well if it's corrected. —Korath (Talk) 23:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support number 1, What a cute little feller! Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • Ick factor partially mitigated by color schemes. I support the third, as well as the second image. Sandover 06:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aceria, Brevipalpus, Tuckerella is my order of preference, but all of these mites deserve to be better known. Sandover 04:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support all (if mm scale is corrected). Order of preference: 2, 1, 3. Junes 20:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - 2, 1, 3. Are these false-color images? I'm not sure how electron microscopes work (time for me to check out the article). Ground 22:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • They are indeed false color, as all SEM photos with color are. So there are some aesthetic considerations to be taken here as well :) Denni☯ 00:18, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • I uploaded the fixed version of #3. It was micrometers. -- BRIAN0918  22:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support any, but three featured pics of mites would be excessive. No order of preference. Mark1 02:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 2 (showing the most depth, nice composition), 1 (because of the color), 3 (too flat, still great ick factor). 3 featured mite would be too much indeed. I think it's best to promote the pic that comes out on top. : ) Mgm|(talk) 09:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The scale is unreadable when the image is thumbnailed. (Should be easy to fix.) Gdr 13:43, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
    • Why should it have to be readable in a thumbnailed version? Isn't the point of a thumbnail to prevent the page from being overly large in filesize? These ones aren't even thumbs, but 200px wide. I doubt you could get the text to be readable at 150px. -- BRIAN0918  14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • It needs to be readable at the size the image appears in the article, say 300px. I mean "thumbnailed" generically, not specifically 150px. Gdr 16:54, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
        • I don't agree that it needs to be readable at the size shown in the article. There doesn't even necessarily have to be a scale with the image, if it is stated separately in the article (see the spider example below, and other insect examples). -- BRIAN0918  17:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support #1 strikingly beautiful Circeus 23:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support in order of 1,2,3. I don't think that it matters that the acutal scale value be readable. There could easily be a sentence in the caption that states the white line represents x um. Also, is it stated what the surfaces that they were taken on were? --Aqua 17:17, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • The first one is a tea stem. The others, it doesn't say. -- BRIAN0918  18:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support in the order 1,2,3. I have absolutely no problem with the scale. Even on a thumbnail it is clear that it is a scale and you can click through to see the figures or put them in the caption. Increasing the font size for any potential scaling would spoil the large scale views. And oh how complicated multiple nominations get. This one will be a real headache to figure out which image to promote. -- Solipsist 07:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Hehehe.. that's why I do it. I actually put them in the order i preferred. Even though 2 or 3 is probably the better picture (you see the mite's structure), I just really like the first one. -- BRIAN0918  22:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 1 2 3. Wow. Smoddy (tgeck) 22:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support 2,1,3. Very nice --Fir0002 23:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Peacock mite, Tuckerella sp.jpg. Barely beat #2. --brian0918™ 22:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)